Talk:Fredrick Brennan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brittle bone disease in lede

This is to explain my placing Fredrick Brennan's brittle bone disease in the article lead (and restoring it when removed).

I can imagine the reasons for removing it: it's not what he wants to be known for, it wasn't something under his control, it's not something he enjoys, it's not a good thing, it shouldn't be part of our one sentence summary of his bio, we should be nice and hide it in the article body as a minor detail. However, per WP:LEDE, the article lead needs to summarize the article, and half the article is about his brittle bone disease, so that needs to be in the lead. Similarly the first half of the sources, including the big ones, New York Times and Al Jazeera America, don't even touch on 8chan, the AJ article and video are completely about his brittle bone disease, and the NYT and PoliceOne article are mostly about how it affected his being robbed. We don't write articles about what people might want to be known for, we write articles about what they are known for. As unfortunate as it is, his osteogenesis imperfecta is a big part of that, so needs to be proportionately reflected in the lede.

I also want to give the common name "brittle bone disease", alongside the medical/Latin name, "osteogenesis imperfecta", since this is neither a medical nor a Latin article, and darn few readers will know what OI is. The common name describes it fairly well, it's used in the title of the AJA article and video, and the link goes to the same place for those who want more details.

As a preemptive and more personal note, I realize that this article is unavoidably part of the GamerGate controversy thingie (heck, the first thing anyone did to the article once I pushed was slap a big banner saying as much on the top of the talk page!), and I gather that one of the first things editors ask when meeting each other on such pages is "what side are you on"?. I have my suspicions that is what Ryulong was really asking on my talk page before being blocked for GamerGate warring. I however, am not on either side, I am simply not interested in that kerfluffle, and have neither bought a video game nor read a for-pay game review in a large number of years. I wrote the article because I saw a highly interesting personal story. That personal story is not synonymous with GamerGate; it's about a rather young man with a big hurdle to overcome who has despite that made a name for himself on the 'net in a short time. If I can find reliable sources, I'd love to add more that I've found in less reliable ones - more about how he grew up, and his Wizardchan days, and his other sites, for example. He's not just a facet of GamerGate, he's a person. If I'm wrong about this guess, and the other editors here are also not interested in GamerGate as such - great, I'll be happy to be wrong. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel we should return to address this even though it seems a minor thing. Utilizing the 'what links here' function on the osteogenesis imperfecta page there are several articles that use either the latin or common english name. Should both names be given? Should only one? If only one, which? And Why? Weedwacker (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Both. It's important enough to his life that we will have more than one sentence about it -- heck, more than one paragraph at least partially about it -- so we have the space to give both names. We should give the common name, brittle bone disease, since it's legible to the common person, as it describes the disorder at least enough that the reader who doesn't follow the link will at least have some idea what it is (his bones are brittle, they break easily and often), and we should also mention that this is just the common name and give the medical name since the common name isn't completely correct (it's not an infectious disease as commonly used, it's a genetic disorder). --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Eugenics

In an opinion piece, Brennan expresses his support for eugenics, as a direct result of his disability. It's published on The Daily Stormer, a 'news' site run by the neo-Nazi web site Stormfront, so there might be issues linking to it. Thoughts on inclusion or not in the article? Deepred6502 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. User:Ryulong objected, so I brought it to WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Article_subject_writing_about_self_in_unsavory_source where there were mixed opinions, the "against" apparently knee jerk reactions. We can try again. As a side note, why do you think The Daily Stormer is run by Stormfront? It seems to be run by Andrew Anglin, who seems to be ... an separate neo-Nazi. :-P --GRuban (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact by searching Anglin + "Don Black" and Stormfront they seem to be in competition. Anglin sounds more like he's a poster from /n/, especially with all the anime pictures he throws all over the site. Heck, he even once used a pony! --Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, an article by The Diplomatic Courier has cited the Stormer article by Brennan.[1] From our article about it, TDC seems to be a respected source (not clear why they're writing about GamerGate). So that answers one of the objections brought up at WP:RSN, that if it was notable someone else would have written about it. Also, TDC linked not to the Stormer itself, but to an archive of it. That should answer another of the objections brought up at WP:RSN, that they might have trusted the article if it was under Brennan's control, but didn't trust the Stormer to control the article; the Stormer can't change the archive. So we can put a link both to the original article and the archive in our cite. Looks like our ducks are in a row to add the info to our article. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh; apparently we can't link to archive.today in articles :-(. So I used WebCite, and checked that the Stormer article text was letter for letter identical with the archive.today copy.[2] --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability

(I'm breaking this section off, as it's no longer about brittle bone disease in the lead.--GRuban (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

No, I was asking why this man is notable separately from 8chan or at all considering the sourcing is poor and most of it regards Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"The sourcing is poor" when it includes the New York Times, Al Jazeera America, New York Magazine, and Le Monde? That's generally considered excellent sourcing. "Most of it regards Gamergate", when there are 11 sources, and 6 don't mention GamerGate at all? That's not considered "most", in the definitions of the word I've found. You'll notice the article has five paragraphs outside the lead, in which one deals with GamerGate. I propose you're looking at the article through POV-tinted glasses. The world does not revolve around GamerGate. Really it doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What about these sources support his notability unto himself? What makes him notable? What is it that supports his notability? These are standard questions to ask of all articles regardless of whatever POV you think I possess.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Er... WP:GNG? --GRuban (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do the articles support his notability? Do they show why he is someone of note? Has he done anything of note outside of owning 8chan? Is he the major focus of these articles you've found? We have to be sure about see things otherwise there shouldn't be an article on someone notable for one thing and one thing only.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Brennan overcomes WP:LOWPROFILE (branch of WP:BLP1E) by being a significantly noted subject in each reliable source, and so his notability need not be questioned.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:LOWPROFILE is an essay and not an aspect of policy like WP:BLP1E. I am questioning his notability because none of the sources seem to suggest he is independently notable of anything.

• New York Times, Police One, and Al Jazeera are all human interest pieces that do not suggest that he is notable.
• HuffPost Live and David Pakman are interviews which do not unto themselves prove notability.
• Le Monde has Brennan's name 3 times in its larger piece on chan culture
• NY Magazine and Daily Dot are more on 8chan than they are on Brennan.

I doubt that the minimal coverage in these pre-Gamergate sources about one event in his life and his creation of 8chan, to which is more the topic of discussion than Brennan himself, qualifies as meeting WP:NBIO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but that's not our definition of notability. He meets WP:GNG, which is. He's been covered in depth by the New York Times and Al Jazeera America, and though you want to argue that that doesn't count for whatever reason, it does. He's notable because he's a young man who's overcome a major disability to have done something important with his life, and the fact that the more in depth pieces focus on the disability rather than the image board doesn't exclude them. It's all about him, both the disability and the image board. See you at WP:AFD, I guess.--GRuban (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Coverage in the NYT and Al Jazeera America is WP:BLP1E. He's certainly no Helen Keller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What event is the 1E there, please? --GRuban (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever got him covered by NYT and AJA in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude. You're saying he is only notable for one event, but you don't know what that is? --00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the non-Gamergate related pieces are just "look at him being brave with his disability" then use that's notability for one thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

But not one event. His disability won't pass with the news cycle. He's got it forever. If there were a BLP1T, you might have a point, but its BLP1E, and it doesn't apply. --GRuban (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If his disability is all he is known for (outside of his creation in 8chan) then he's not really notable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No such rule. We've got plenty of people known mainly for their disabilities; and Brennan is actually known for doing things despite it (see the AJA article headline, for example), which is an even somewhat different kettle of fish. Look, he clearly meets WP:GNG, but if that doesn't bother you and if you want to nominate it for deletion, go ahead. Clearly you're neither reading the article nor listening to me, and I admit, I'm somewhat tired of clearly false arguments, from "being selected for interview by an international program doesn't contribute to notability because it's primary", to "most sourcing regards Gamergate", when the majority don't even mention it, to "notable only for one event", when you can't think of the event, to now "disability is not really notable", when it certainly can be, and there is absolutely no rule saying otherwise. Nominate it for deletion, or come up with an argument meant to actually convince me, and for the latter you'll have to realize that I actually read the article (having you know, written it), so just making them up blindly isn't going to work. --GRuban (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

THe issue here is that there are three stories vaguely about difficulties this man has in his life that do not make him unique in that regard. He was interviewed by Pakman because of Gamergate. This says he was robbed. Not notablity for the victim (Brennan) unto itself. This is a human interest piece on the fact that he's got this disability. THis is just a video version of the last one. This is a donation page. This is about the robbery again. This is about 8chan. This is another donation thing. These things shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. This is about all -chans and Brennan is mentioned three times total. This is about Gamergate/8chan and not Brennan himself, although he's heavily featured as part of the interviews. And these two are Gamergate/8chan related interviews which fall under WP:PRIMARY. None of these support the notability of this person. They show he exists but that's all that can really be said.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And uniqueness is also not required. Nominate, or I don't really understand your goal here. --GRuban (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't nominate it because everyone on a particular Reddit board will have an aneurysm over it. He is not notable. Nothing in the article says he's notable. It's human interest stories on 2 newspapers about his disability, interviews, 2 pages asking to give him money to help him fund stuff, and items where he's peripherally mentioned due to his heavy involvement in Gamergate..—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh! Thanks for your concern for the brain health of everyone on a particular Reddit board; you're a humanitarian! (Reddit is another of the sins I have managed to avoid, somehow. One of these days I've gotta gets me an internet.) From where I sit, only the WP:GNG says he's notable, but fortunately that's what's required. No hard feelings, I hope, and thanks for ending this nicely rather than unpleasantly. Best of luck to you. Hopefully one of these days we can find something to agree on, rather than the reverse. --GRuban (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent sources, seems notable to me. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading over WP:GNG and looking at the sources, everything seems in order. I'm not sure I see what Ryulong is actually debating here. HessmixD (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The three sources regarding his robbery or his general disability are not significant coverage beyond a single event.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: is daily dot not RS? I've looked and can't find word on it one way or other. HessmixD (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if it is, that definitely put it past WP:BLP1E I would think HessmixD (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that it's self published with no editorial committee so it might not be considered a reliable source but then again this is what WP:RSN is for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I see that he's notable for his success in life with Osteogenesis Imperfecta and he's also notable as the founder and owner of 8chan. What is the dispute? WP:RS? I think that's a totally different issue. TyTyMang (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that he's notable for the disease. He's mentioned in three human interest pieces because of it and that's it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Aljazeera found him notable enough for his disease alone to do a piece on him. And the New York Times found his situation notable enough to do more than one piece on him. I guess the question falls to what *you* *believe* to be notability, or at least what your conditions are for sufficient notability. I'd very much like to know what your standard is.... TyTyMang (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A handful of human interest pieces do not convey that this one person is notable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Wikipedia:Notability doesn't say anything about "human interest pieces don't count". Where are you getting this rule? --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So Ryulong, is your argument about the definition of the word notable? Or maybe a quantity of notability? I haven't seen a WP Guideline regarding the subjective nature of notability. Not everyone will find the same things notable on a personal level. But as a rebuttal to your statement, A handful of human interest pieces do indeed convey that this one person is notable. Even one human interest piece does convey a certain level of notability. But it would seem your argument is that you believe there is a minimum amount of notability required to be considered for a WP article. Correct? TyTyMang (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that despite the fact that you can pull all these sources that mention this person by name that they unto themselves do not prove that this person is notable. A story about the fact he was robbed and then a story just going "Look at this brave man with this disease" do not prove notability. His only notability derives from the fact he's embroiled himself in the Gamergate controversy through the ownership of his website so he should be discussed as a part of that rather than spend most of this article saying "He has this disease and also 8chan"—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Then the question is, how do you define notability? I do find gamergate material personally notable, but I am not limited to that.

As for the article content, WP:NCC says that it shall have no impact on the notability of its subject. The impression that I get from that guideline is that the source itself creates the notability. But I'm sure that can be interpreted other ways. TyTyMang (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going by Wikipedia's definition and the issue here is that the sources unrelated to 8chan do not lend notability to this person when he was previously only known for getting robbed and having this genetic disorder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I've never come across the Wikipedia definition. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?TyTyMang (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's at WP:N. This is a borderline case because of the level of coverage and that's why it's up for discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Keep this edit. It makes no sense to mention his robbery in the lede. And this is just horrendous writing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what is he notable for if not getting robbed because that's all half of the sources talk about?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's see. Just a little higher on this page, you wrote that most of the sourcing was about GamerGate. That wasn't true. Now you write that all that half the sources talk about is him getting robbed. That isn't true (the robbery is mentioned in 4 out of 12 sources). Doesn't repeatedly writing blatant misinformation bother you? But to answer your question, as above, he's notable for being a young man with a major disability that founded and manages a prominent board on the internet, and has become one of the go-to sources for a notable controversy. Sorry if that's complex, but that's what the sources are covering him for, so that's what he's Wikipedia:Notable for. He's a person. People are complex. --GRuban (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd wager the 2,000 visitors to this article in the last couple of weeks were not researching robbery victims at random.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They're here because of Gamergate and 8chan and the fact that I've said something about this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the lede should only contain a summary of the most pertinent information in the article. His disease is not what makes him notable (if he's notable at all). His disease (and robbery) got him interviewed by the NYT and Al Jazeera America but this is not what is to be taken away from the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that since more than half of the current sources make significant mention of the disability or are about him and his disability, that his disability is part of his notability. Also see comments by GRuban on the AfD page about this [3]. Weedwacker (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He is either notable for his disability (arguable) or notable for being part of Gamergate via 8chan (also arguable). No one is coming to this page to learn about a young man with a genetic disorder. They're coming here because he owns 8chan and is involved in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't write about what people are coming here to see, we write what the sources say should be here. Surely you could agree with that statement? If you say he is "arguably" notable for his disability or gamergate, why can't he be notable for both? Weedwacker (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the former doesn't make him notable based on the coverage on that and the other sugests he is just a portion of a larger whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia:Notability and the participants in the AFD disagree with you. --GRuban (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. I dunno, a bunch of articles about 8chan and Gamergate with just a couple of articles about a person with a congenital disorder getting robbed and let down by the NYPD don't really scream notable to me under that definition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait for the AfD decision on whether this article is notable and if it stands we can discuss why it is notable based on the decision. Weedwacker (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I argue that 8chan is notable for its radical freedom of speech policy, which led to its involvement with Gamergate and other far more reprehensible uses. I argue that the freedom of speech policy belongs in the lede, not the effects of the policy. Gamergate belongs in the 8chan article and associated section here, not in the lede. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

8chan is not known for being a "free speech" haven. It is known for being a gathering ground for Gamergate. More coverage is given to the prominence in Gamergate than its free speech nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So freedom of speech is nonsense? What kind of censorious position is that? The prominence in Gamergate is because of its freedom of speech policy, which precludes kicking the Gamergaters out of 8chan. The policy is the root cause of its notability and should be featured in the lede. The lede should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. Gamergate is overly specific when the same root cause has led to other criticisms of 8chan, such as the pedophile-haven criticisms mentioned in the article. Worse, the Gamergate controversy attracts POV-pushing like flies to excrement. Mentioning it any more than we really must will only attract more vandals than we already have. They're even vandalizing the article about ants. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool and should not be used in content disputes. There's an "undo" link right there in the revision history. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech" on the Internet is a logical fallacy because nearly all websites are operated by private citizens who set up terms of service and rules that allow them to restrict what happens on their websites in order to prevent abuse and other situations. Simply because today's Internet libertarian equates the United States law of "freedom of speech" which is meant to protect citizens from getting arrested for criticizing the government with "I'm allowed to be an asshole on the Internet" does not mean that 8chan, which prouds itself on not having any viable terms of service because of this false concept of "freedom of speech" does not make it what should be covered in the first sentence of this article. Brennan and 8chan have only received any press in recent months because of the diaspora from 4chan's /b/, /v/, and /pol/ boards over the violations of the "no harassment" and "no raiding" rules over Gamergate, which is what the majority of the sources covering Brennan discuss (outside of the criticism over the pedo boards).

And I used the "add an edit summary" rollback rather than the vandalism rollback.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a human right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them, not a logical fallacy nor a false concept. The ability of a website owner to restrict the use of his website is not a duty to do so. Arguing "freedom of speech" against a site that, unlike Wikipedia, is censored, is silly, as it is the site owner's right to censor his site if he wishes. A site owner who chooses not to censor his site is unusual exactly as you mention. If you read 8chan's FAQ, you will see three kinds of abuse that are prohibited on 8chan: CP, excessive spam and other illegal content. In short, 8chan is Fredrick Brennan's site, and he, as its owner, chooses not to censor the site. This lack of censorship is the root cause of both the pedophile-haven accusations and the gathering of Gamergaters on 8chan. It is therefore the most succinct and general description and belongs in the lede. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the concept of "free speech" is not being acknowledged as important here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain. Is it that the concept of "free speech" is not being acknowledged as important by you? By corporate media? By someone else? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that the concept that 8chan was created as a bastion for "free speech" is not the focus of the coverage of Brennan in relation to 8chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We aren't talking about in general, or even the coverage. We are talking about what Wikipedia should put in the first sentence of an article. Perhaps we should not mention 8chan's notability at all? This is not the 8chan article, after all. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And you had to redo one of my edits because you used Twinkle's rollback rather than using MediaWiki's undo. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Spilt milk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgiven. Please try to spill less milk in the future. It can make quite a mess. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say 8chan is known for both. There is absolutely no sense in removing mention of 8chan's connection to gamergate in the lede. From the number of sources addressing the matter, I think it is not up for debate any longer. The site's popularity is largely the result of its connection to gamergate. It's notability as a proponent of free speech is something that can be argued and discussed here for whether it is given significant enough mention in references. Weedwacker (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is known for both, but it would have had nothing to do with the Gamergate controversy if it did not have a pro-freedom-of-speech policy. Without such a policy, Gamergate would likely have been censored off of 8chan along with the alleged (they haven't been convicted and thrown in jail, so they remain "alleged") pedophiles, for which the site has also drawn criticism. The lede should not be overly specific, and the free-speech policy is the most general way to sum up the root cause of both criticisms. How about ...which is known for drawing criticism for the results of its strong support of freedom of speech? Or ...which is known for drawing criticism for its refusal to censor lawful content, no matter how outrageous? Or some similar variation? Ideas? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

70.133.144.10 raised the valid point that it's free speech stance is at the root of its Gamergate prominence. B follows A but not the reverse. What if we distinguished between known for and gained prominence ? --107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand the reasoning behind that, but this article is about the creator of 8chan, not the website itself. 8chan is notable for its "free speech" and lack of moderation because enough reliable sources give praise and criticism to it on those grounds. We'd need to decide if the sources here establish that Fredrick is notable for his stance on "free speech" and lack of moderation. What we have now is his stance with regards to his website further down in the article. I'm not convinced yet that the lede needs to be bloated further for such a small article. Experiment with how you might include it on this page and back up your proposal with evidence from the sources. Weedwacker (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should simply delete everything after "8chan" from the lede? How about Fredrick Brennan, also known by the nickname "Hotwheels", is an American computer programmer who founded the imageboard website 8chan? Just remove all description of 8chan's notability from the lede entirely? I can support that. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is something I am considering. Fredrick is most notable for creating 8chan. I don't know if it's necessary to include why 8chan is notable in the lede of an article about its creator. It's worth discussing whether the lede should include Fredrick's notability for his participation in Gamergate, his disability, or his robbery, but i'm not sure the lede about Fredrick should include why his website is notable. Also like I said, with an article of this size it's not worth repeating things other than the most notable in order to avoid bloat and repeating things in the article. Everyone in this discussion should weigh in on this. Weedwacker (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I support mentioning the founding of 8chan, but none of the others. Gamergate, the disability, and the robbery are all things that happened to him. 8chan is something that he did. Mentioning the disability in a context of his overcoming it could be good, but would likely end up either awkward, close to puffery, or just plain overly long. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this. Succinct and uncontroversial. This article is about the person not the site. We discuss the site sparingly or where it relates to the person, the rest is better left for the 8chan article. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we only know of both 8chan and Brennan because of Gamergate should be noted in the lede.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the Al Jazeera and New York Times articles don't even touch on GamerGate makes that blatantly incorrect. Again. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well those articles don't really make him independently notable for discussion of anything because before Gamergate happened he was just some kid in New York with a congenital disease who got robbed and didn't get a ride home after going to the cops.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I disagree, WP:N disagreed, and the participants in the AFD disagreed. Second, even if that were true, your statement would still be incorrect, because "we" who read those articles -- and there are plenty of "us" -- would still know about him because of those articles, which have nothing to do GamerGate; and even those who read both those and the GamerGate articles, know considerably more about him from the AJA pieces, as they are the most indepth, and second from the NYT pieces, as they are the second most indepth. May I please, please, appeal to you not to write blatantly incorrect statements? --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The AFD was brigaded by the usual people in this topic area. So you either write an article that says this is a guy with brittle bone disease (which doesn't make him notable because the only reason he had any press was because of his robbery and the events that unfolded after) or you write an article on the person who developed 8chan which has notability intrinsically related to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of AfD (by 70.133.144.10 (talk))

Keep	Ambivalent	Other	Unclear
The Devil's Advocate Muscat Hoe Loganmac GRuban 76.64.35.209 107.15.41.141 Aldnonymous 70.133.144.10	HessmixD Tstormcandy Tarc Ilovetopaint	Deadbeef Ryulong TheRedPenOfDoom	Drmies

The AFD was brigaded is a difficult accusation to answer, since proof either way will be hard to find, but I'll try to answer it anyway. I've made a table summarizing the votes in that discussion. Keep lists users who voted to keep the article. Ambivalent lists users who voted with an alternative, either "Keep or Merge" or "Keep or Redirect". All of the "Ambivalent" users listed Keep first. Other lists users who voted either for Merge or Redirect, which are substantially the same. Unclear lists a user who began his vote with I suppose this person can be said to pass the GNG, but the only bold word in his comment was redirect. He probably was "ambivalent", but I'm putting him in his own category to be sure. Two disruptive sock puppets are omitted from the table.

I've used the User Contribution Search tool to check which, if any of these users have edited the Gamergate controversy article or its talk page. The tool can search for contributions to multiple articles, but can only search one namespace with each query. I have highlighted each user name where the tool found results. A green highlight means the user appeared only on the talk page. A yellow highlight means the user appeared on both the article and the talk page. No users from the AfD only edited the article.

As far as supporting/refuting accusations of brigading the AfD from Gamergate goes, this doesn't support claims of either side "rallying the troops". It is worth noting that Aldnonymous made only two edits to the talk page. The first edit corrected a wikitext formatting mistake, and the second expressed disgust with the state of the article and announced that he was walking away from it, which he has done. If we assume that everyone with significant involvement in Gamergate was here to "brigade" the discussion and ignore them, we are left with 5 keeps, 1 "Keep or Merge", and one redirect. Even if we also ignore the three IP editors, there is still more consensus for keep than anything else. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of all of the editors that said "keep" rather than your "ambilvalent" header, three are parties to the present arbitration case on Gamergate and the 3 IPs are all Gamergate advocates who do not have registered accounts, not to mention that one of the other people who argued for keep was banned from the topic and was discovered to have used sockpuppets to disrupt the discussion. There is a desire to keep pages like this while removing pages on others that do not fit into their narrative. If Brennan did not own 8chan he would not be notable, and no one would have made a page on him based on the New York Times and America Tonight pieces about his disability. So either he is known for Gamergate or he is not known for Gamergate and therefore he is not really notable at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my description of the table? "Ambivalent" was a short way to describe votes for "Keep or ...". Nothing more, nothing less. I specifically said that two disruptive sockpuppets, or, as we now know, a sockmaster and his puppet, were omitted from the table. Are you claiming that there were more sockpuppets in the AfD than were caught? Which of the other people who argued for keep was topic banned? Of the editors in the table, only The Devil's Advocate, Loganmac, Tarc, Ryulong, and the TheRedPenOfDoom are listed at the arbitration page that I could find. All of them have significant involvement with the Gamergate controversy article and my original analysis considered the outcome without them. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, interesting, I didn't know I was a Gamergate advocate, I thought I was here to build an encyclopedia. Unless, of course, Gamergate advocate is code for "disagrees with Ryulong". Please be a bit more careful with that broad brush of yours. Cutting and pasting your words, I could say just the same that there is a desire to keep pages|on others|while removing pages|like this|that do not fit into their narrative(pipes indicate splice points between direct quotes) on the part of some other group. That is a bare accusation without evidence, not a valid argument for anything. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please try to keep this branch of the discussion to the topic of possible brigading of the AfD. I will not answer arguments about notability on this branch. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Fredrick Brennan. It is not about 8chan, and we have another article for that. The reasons that 8chan is notable have nothing to do with why Brennan is notable. Notability is not transitive. If 8chan were notable because it correctly predicted an invasion of flying space hamsters, Brennan could still be non-notable, unless he personally made that prediction, but then 8chan would not be notable for the prediction. Brennan's notability does not exclusively stem from founding 8chan, nor does it stem from Gamergate. Michael Wilson's NYT article was written long before any of the controversy. Arguably, we should mention his disability, as it really is his overcoming that disability to found 8chan that mostly makes him notable. I still stand by my earlier rationale that founding 8chan should be in the lede because it is something he did, while his disability, the robbery, Gamergate, etc. should be omitted from the lede because those all happened to him. Note that 8chan's notability has nothing to do with the rule I have used, which I see as a courtesy to a living person. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still the best argument I've read on the matter and I endorse it. Weedwacker (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophillic Content

Mentioning this gives it undue weight; many more RSs have made the same criticism of reddit yet wikipedia doesn't mention it in Alexis Ohanian --107.15.41.141 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the article on Alexis Ohanian does not include a reference that explicitly criticizes the fact that his website allows pedophilic content and his response to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Present more argument for the undue weight aspect beyond comparing him to Ohanian. As it is now i'm inclined to agree with Ryulong that the reference does heavily mention pedophilic content. Though I personally don't agree with the author's assertion that 8chan links to child pornography, an RS is an RS. Weedwacker (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Since we seem to be having an edit conflict over this reference we should discuss how we can agree to word it here, and I invite @Ilovetopaint: to join in the discussion before this edit war goes further. My own suggestion for how to word this is follows: "He has received criticism over several boards on his site that are dedicated to pedophilia, which Brennan says he does not support and refuses to moderate further than United States law requires him to." I believe this gives weight to both the author's criticism and Brenna's response which is deeper than "free speech". Weedwacker (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Current edit by Ryulong seems fine. So is your syntax.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you mean this one [4] I am inclined to agree, though I still think it's more about United States law than just free speech. I also think the word "criticism" is better than "controversy" but that may just be me. Weedwacker (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've reworded this to summarize that the policy on 8chan is not to remove lawful content. I've also changed "faced controversy over" to "been criticized for" because He has been criticized for is simple and direct while He has faced controversy over is less specific that the criticism is of he himself. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the clarification as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, latest edit is reasonable. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we could all come to an understanding on this. Weedwacker (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This got blocked in the worst possible moment, we had already established a good wording for not linking him with allowing pedophilia, but Ryulong apparently wasn't happy, right now the article reads "He has been criticized for the website's pedophilia-related boards; Brennan has said he personally finds such content reprehensible, but stands by his refusal to remove content that does not violate United States law" sounds like clever wording to avoid mentioning that his site's rules EXPLICITLY say he disallows pedophilia. A reader would ask, what is "pedophilia-related boards"? Are there boards for posting pedophilia? Absolutely not, yet this article mentions it as fact. I have now contacted Fredrick on this. Loganmac (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The references in question simply say that the boards are for either borderline soft core content or general discussion of the subject so we are being general here with what the content is. The source does not say that the actual explicit content is not allowed so we cannot make that statement on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Via email to admin@8chan.co, User:LoganMac asked me to confirm that 8chan does not allow the uploading of child pornography on its servers, takes steps to remove it, and gives information to US law enforcement about posters who have posted such content. We do all of these things. There is no way to run a clearnet website in the US (and I'd go so far as to say anywhere in the world) without doing these things. 8chan complies with all US law, if we didn't there's no way we would have been around this long. FredrickBrennan (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosstopher (talk • contribs)

Removal of video link

I can't see a benefit to not including the video interview, and some I'm sure would prefer audio/video to text. Seems best to discuss rather than edit war. Thoughts on inclusion/exclusion? --107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need two references for the same information. Though I do see your point in people who would prefer video over text, and I wish the video was in the article, I'm not sure it's necessary to include both in this article. Weedwacker (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This could be an education for me in wikipedia standards. I'm going on the assumption that if there's no discernible negative, and a potential positive, include the source. Or is it rather: each link or fact in the article requires strong justification for inclusion? Maybe there's a standards text you can direct me to. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not need two citations from the exact same source but in different formats to provide the same information. We do not need Al Jazeera's interview with him and their video interview with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is itself text, and I think we should favor text sources. The video could be mentioned in the same footnote as its transcript, but the transcript is probably an easier-to-verify source. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't a transcript; for example it's in Al Jazeera's voice, while the video is solely in the voice of the participants (mostly Brennan) and Al Jazeera's voice doesn't appear. Also the article does not have everything that the video does. But until we have an item that needs to be sourced solely to the video, we can put it in the same footnote as the transcript. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Phrasing for RfC

Looks like we have a fundamental disagreement on what consensus is here. I thought the AfD discussion settled that he was notable for more than just GamerGate, but the revert war shows not everyone agrees. Can we agree on a short, yet neutral way to phrase a Wikipedia:Request for comments that can settle the question? How about "Is Fredrick Brennan notable solely for GamerGate?"? Ryulong, is that an adequate summary of your opinion? Or do you have a different phrasing of the basic question? --GRuban (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that Ryulong seems to be the only editor who wants GamerGate in the lede. I'll think about about how to word the question, though. I'm still gathering evidence to answer his earlier accusation of brigading the AfD. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to post about this on KIA meow?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is KIA meow? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The AFD didn't settle anything. The issue stands that the two aspects of his life somehow make him notable but barely. These borderline cases can be handled otherwise. The fact that he has this congenital disease is not what makes him notable by itself, despite that being what got him covered by Al Jazeera. His robbery doesn't make him notable because that's WP:BLP1E stands by. He is either notable for 8chan, which is only notable for Gamergate, or he's not really notable at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

8chan is not the subject of this article. Brennan being notable for 8chan does not mean that 8chan is itself notable, nor does 8chan's notability belong in this article's lede. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

But he created 8chan and he's only being entioned with regards to 8chan and the gamergate controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not transitive. Fredrick Brennan is known for creating 8chan. That belongs in this article and in the lede. 8chan is notable for the other stuff. That belongs in the 8chan article, not here, except perhaps in the section on 8chan, where it isn't controversial, and certainly not in the lede of this article. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

8chan's notability and Brennan's notability are both intertwined with its presence in Gamergate so it must be mentioned in some way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is mentioned, in the section of the article about 8chan, where it belongs. Unless, that is, I'm hallucinating the text the website gained popularity from the Gamergate controversy. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to word it, but I support starting a RfC. Weedwacker (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps something like What is Fredrick Brennan notable for besides 8chan? would be a better question because both in my opinion and supporting the one ip editor's statement farther up the page it is something "he did" not something that "happened to him". Weedwacker (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The catch is that he seems to be notable for founding 8chan despite his disability. Neither founding 8chan nor the disability nor the robbery alone make him notable, but the combination does. Nonetheless, there is no requirement to put everything in the lede, and the argument here is about including 8chan's notability in the lede of the article describing its founder. Perhaps Should a biography of the founder of an online community mention why that community is notable when the community also has an article of its own? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason both questions can't be asked. Weedwacker (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

From some experience with them, I've found that RfCs are much better when asking "yes/no" or "multiple choice" questions. If you ask a question that can be answered in a free form way, you will get a different answer from each participant, and nothing will be settled, and the revert war will continue. Now that's a fine thing to start with, if we were each willing to compromise, and actually listen to what the other people are saying, but that doesn't seem to be happening here. So, Ryulong's answer is a bit long, but not ridiculously so. I'll use it for the RfC question. "Is Fredrick Brennan notable only for 8chan, which is only notable for GamerGate?" Hopefully the RfC will settle something. Unlike the AfD, according to Ryulong. And here I admit I did think the AfD did at least settle the "is he notable at all" issue; you know, given that every participant said so. --GRuban (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the proviso that there's a feasible reason to merge this page into 8chan due to the borderline level of notability this subject has on his own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we both see things how we'd like to see them, but I don't see that conclusion from the AfD. Weedwacker (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That proviso reads with no prejudice towards any trusted editor redirecting after merging the contents, post a consensus on the relevant talk page(emphasis added). There is no consensus on the relevant talk page, which would be this page, here, where we are currently debating what to put in the lede, to do that. One editor, Ryulong, arguing for the merge while almost everyone else opposes is not a consensus to merge anything. Revert warring so much that an admin had to protect the page and claiming in an edit summary that there is no consensus when there very clearly was consensus is not an action compatible with being a trusted editor. That thread on the talk page ends with all three editors who had been active on that branch of the discussion agreeing to remove mention of the Gamergate controversy from the lede. See my table in the "Lede" section with the highlighted usernames for a summary of the AfD which I think answers the "brigading" issue. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because no one else from the AFD who argued against retention is here but me because they don't give a shit. The only thing here is your accusation that I'm not a "trusted editor".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If no one else from the AfD who argued against retention is here because they don't care, then maybe it isn't that important after all? Maybe just leaving those words out of the lede and letting it go is the answer? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now, the article is protected because you were edit warring against consensus. That kind of conduct precludes trust. The article protection was applied just after your 3rd revert in 7 hours over that exact text. If that edit war had continued, you, and you alone, were headed for 3RR. An admin stopped the edit war just in time to provide for cooling off. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

None of this prevents me from suggesting this get merged into 8chan for lack of independent notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You can suggest it. But it isn't going to happen because no one else here agrees with you and you are not making sound arguments for it. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, people at the AFD seemed to have similar arguments as to how this should be merged rather than left on its own seeing as he's only intrinsically related to one subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere, let's just do the RfC. Weedwacker (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After rereading the WP:RFC page, I notice the example there mirrors our own issue. How about: Should this article say in the lede that 8chan is part of the Gamergate controversy? Simple, direct, and the exact question we have had an edit war over. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Weedwacker (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not Ryulong's full issue with the article, that's just one manifestation of it. Whatever answer we get to that, Ryulong will keep insisting, as above, that "he's only intrinsically related to one subject", in one phrasing or the other. That's the root of the problem. Do you notice that he is still arguing that "the AFD didn't settle anything", and that the article should be merged into 8chan? No doubt if it is merged into 8chan, he will then argue that the stuff about Fredrick Brennan's actual life outside of 8chan should be removed, since it doesn't touch on 8chan ... and there we will have it, the article will be just as deleted as if the AFD didn't occur. "Is Fredrick Brennan notable only for 8chan, which is only notable for GamerGate?" is the question we need to ask in the RfC; that answer will solve the "what do we say in the lede" problem, and a host of others. He wrote, naively. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Most important point(s) of this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Fredrick Brennan notable only for 8chan, which is only notable for GamerGate? --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the basic dispute at the heart of a number of disagreements about this article, including the nomination of the article for deletion (for insufficient Wikipedia:Notability), and the protection of the article from edit warring (over what the WP:LEDE should say). To keep this easier to read, please enter short opinions in the Survey section, one per editor, and responses to other people in the #Threaded discussion section. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• No. The Al Jazeera article, the most indepth source we have for this biography, doesn't mention either 8chan or GamerGate. Like most people, Fredrick Brennan is complex, and articles have been written about his Osteogenesis imperfecta, his status as founder of 8chan, and his role as prominent GamerGate advocate; no one facet fully describes him, he is notable for all three. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No Same as above, you will find almost the same discussion on the deletion page though Loganmac (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. 8chan has supplanted notability within Gamergate. However, Brennan's profiled disease and involvement with Gamergate warrants him just barely enough independent notability.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• yes/merge having a disease doesn't make you notable. coverage was just a passing fluff piece, he has not become a public activist known for championing awareness of the disease. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The fluff pieces regarding his congenital disease do not unto themselves make this person notable because he does not allegedly make this disease his identifying feature. His participation in 8chan and GamerGate do. He is not like Ted DeVita or Joseph Merrick who have been discussed in popular culture and historical work. Brennan had two entirely unrelated articles in major news organizations about having the disease rather than all of the other sources that discuss his participation in 8chan and GamerGate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No I argue that, as a courtesy to a living person, the lede should be limited to things Brennan did. His disability, the robbery, and Gamergate are all things that happened to him. Accordingly, Gamergate does not belong in the article lede, while founding 8chan does. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, per GRuban. Founding and maintaining 8chan is certainly his most notable achievement, but not the entirety of his existence. Entire argument tastes contrived. He could feasibly be merged with 8chan, but this is just another example of certain editors crusading a censoring POV to the detriment of The Project. 128.193.252.44 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, pretty sure he was famous because he manage to be successful programer despite his disease. Other than that, he's famous for being able to make an imageboard that able to rival 4chan.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No As noted in the AfD, 8chan got some props for this epic response to a takedown request from a pick-up artist. There is also, in addition to what is present, this coverage regarding Mr. Brennan: [5] [6] [7].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No I believe his 8chan founding status is very notable because as far as I've seen, 8chan is the only place with true freedom of speech online. And thus he is a free-speech advocate whether self described or not. I also believe that his disease, aside from having to overcome such a hindrance, may have some influence on his actions. Thus I believe this adds notability to his disease and would be wrong for it to be marginalized. Besides, he's also the subject of a police incident which seem to be worthy of their own articles nowadays. That's my opinion. (since it appears that this survey is asking for an opinion since the sources already establish a "sourced notability")TyTyMang (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, it doesn't appear that his notability is tied completely to GamerGate. That being said, if this article is kept it needs to be watched like a hawk, because notable personalities on both sides of the GamerGate controversy have been targeted by activists on either side of the issue. It appears that this article has already been attacked by at least one established WP editor with a paid agenda. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  It's not a fucking paid agenda and it's not an attack either. Cla68, stop making these baseless personal attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Quick question before I opine on this RfC. I thought I read somewhere that Brennan had said in an interview that he had also received harassment and death threats due to his connection to the GamerGate controversy? If so, I don't see any mention of this in the article. Is it true? Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know if its true. Fortunately, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth, so it can go in the article if you can find a reliable source for it. I don't have one and I'm trying to avoid getting so close to the controversy that I can't keep a neutral view. Such threats would certainly be outrageous, if they were to occur. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I will await comments from editors not already involved in the content dispute or broad topic dispute before contributing my thoughts. Weedwacker (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• @Aldnonymous: None of the sources I've seen say his congenital disease was a hindrance to becoming a computer programmer. He just happens to be both.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  And?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  It's the whole argument you're making. You say he's famous because he's a computer programmer despite having brittle bone disease when I do not think that is the focus of the articles about him about his brittle bone disease.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  You're a funny guy, I like you, the point is, how he make his board successful not because Gamergate nonsense, if we are talking people migrating from 4chan to 8chan it's different matter entirely. It's also funny when you're talking it's like Wikipedia is for veritable source only, but not truth and fact, so... I can't speak about my politically correct opinion but I'm only allowed to support your opinion? Okay okay, fine! you want source alright, so... "Overcoming Disability" here is nonsense then? Okay I will take that *chuckle*.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  Is this about overcoming his disability in general or in regards to programming? Because it seems like his disability has nothing to do with his programming skills, as he says himself in that article, "Behind the keyboard, it doesn't matter that physically my body doesn't work properly."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ryulong's been instructed not to edit gamergate-related articles and, as you can see, attemping to reason with him is pointless. Better for the article and all involved to simply ignore him. --24.211.172.115 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  This IP randomly reverted me on another article I cleaned up and has no other edits outside of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Which part of "I take it" you don't understand? Because arguing with people who missing the point is unconstructive and I have no wish to continue pointless argument, so I will ignore your ping or reply here, but I will stay with no on the RfC, good night :^) --AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  His brittle bone disease is a major hindrance to his entire life. Being a computer programmer is one of the few things that he could do. That's explicitly said in the articles. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  But if his programming is not hindered by his disability, then what makes it something to note in both of them?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  His whole life is hindered by his disability. All of it. The fact that he has found something that he can do despite it, is Wikipedia:notable - meaning people, major sources, write about it. That thing - his job - is computer programming. Just read the subhead to the Al Jazeera article: "Fredrick Brennan, who works two jobs, lives independently and has brittle bone disease." They certainly seem to think his brittle bone disease is something to note in the same sentence as his computer programming work. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  While that may be, the Al Jazeera America piece is a massive fluff piece human interest story, as was the piece in The New York Times (do we call it "clickbait" when it's online though?). If 8chan was not the centerpiece of Gamergate, neither of those two sources on their own would make this person notable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  At the top of this question to AldNon, you wrote "You say he's famous because he's a computer programmer despite having brittle bone disease when I do not think that is the focus of the articles about him about his brittle bone disease." Well, obviously, the article about his brittle bone disease is, in fact, about his brittle bone disease. At most his job as a computer programmer can be a secondary focus. But it pretty clearly is a secondary focus, and a rather important secondary focus, since it's in the subhead, since his job is what pays for his apartment, his chair, his reacher arms, etc. But that's suddenly not your objection, now your objection is that the whole article is "fluff". Honestly, that sounds offensive, given that it's a rather indepth description of someone's life, and it's not a particularly easy life. But at least you are withdrawing your objection to AldNon's well justified opinion? --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  My argument was that his brittle bone disease was not a hindrance to his computer programming, as I thought was AldNon's original message's meaning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  While neither of those two sources on their own would make him notable, the combination of the sources, the fact that both of them mention Brennan, does make him notable. We have significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources, per WP:GNG. He is notable. Ryulong, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  No, fluff pieces in two separate newspapers together do not make him notable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Two separate news outlets saw fit to write about him, therefore he is notable. Are you claiming that the New York Times is not a reliable source? Or that Al Jazeera America is not a reliable source? 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  No, I'm calling into question the reliability of all of the fluff pieces about one resident who happens to have a rare congenital disease.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  So you are calling into question the reliability of these articles in the New York Times, then? Those aren't fluff pieces. Those articles are both from a "Crime Scene" column that looks like a sort of police blotter with longer stories. A more recent article describes how a bunch of crooks were abusing a Domino's Pizza ordering app to determine if stolen credit card numbers were still valid. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  He was robbed. Does that make him notable? He has a disease and owns a website? Does that make him notable? I want these questions answered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple reliable sources have published articles about him, mostly because of the disease and the robbery. The disease and robbery do not make him notable in Wikipedia. The publication of articles by reliable sources about the disease and robbery does make him notable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth. [Formerly 70.133.144.10] 70.133.151.184 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  This doesn't answer my question. How does coverage of his disease and the robbery convey notability?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  Because that's what Wikipedia:Notability is: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's like you're asking "what is 2+2" and everyone keeps writing "4", and you repeat, "but that doesn't answer my question, what is 2+2?" All the comments you are making about "fluff" are (a) offensive - this is a person's life we're talking about, and a rather hard life (b) nowhere to be found in our policies and guidelines, and often directly contradicted by them (the New York Times and Al Jazeera are not Wikipedia:reliable sources?), (c) as you can see, most participants do not agree with them. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  Well this isn't significant coverage. Human interest pieces do not give this person notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  Fortunately, we have a definition for "significant coverage". WP:SIGCOV, in fact. Here it is. ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That seems to fit those stories. No "human interest" exception that I can see there. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  The issue here is that the "significant coverage" he received was either due to a single event (his being robbed and the events thereafter), his disability in general (they could have inerviewed anyone in New York with a congenital disease like he did), and Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  You have just said that there is significant coverage relating to each of the topics of his disability, the robbery, and Gamergate. All three of these are mentioned in the article. None of them are mentioned in the lede. What is the problem here? 70.133.151.184 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  The problem is that what is being taken as "significant coverage" is inherently insignificant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. "Significant coverage" does not mean coverage that is significant in a broader sense, but only that no original research is required to use it in Wikipedia. It appears that you are confusing two different definitions of significant. The notability guidelines use it in sense 1, that the coverage must itself carry meaning. You seem to have confused this with sense 3, a synonym for notable. There is no requirement that Wikipedia sources themselves be notable, although many reliable sources are notable. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. The issue here is that the coverage of him as a person with a disability, while significant per WP:SIGCOV, does not convey that he is notable for that reason or the fact that he is a computer programmer despite his disability, considering he has said that his disability does not hinder his ability to program. This then leads us to believe that he has only gained notability due to his ownership of 8chan which never received any press until Gamergate became a thing. 8chan was up and running during all of these but was not mentioned as part of the story. It is only because of 8chan that he's gained any other "significant coverage" per Wikipedia's terminology, because you can find anything in any public regional newspaper (not that the NYT meets that considering it's national syndication) but a single New York City crime beat piece and an interview about his disability do not make this the most important thing to discuss. It is the fact that he is 8chan's owner and 8chan is a central aspect of Gamergate (as much as anything can be a central aspect of Gamergate) that he is known.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's step through the general notability guidelines. We have "significant coverage", which even you admit meets WP:SIGCOV, from "reliable", secondary "sources" that are "independent of the subject". He is therefore "presumed" notable, per WP:GNG. So, which of the rules in WP:NOT does Brennan violate, or is he notable enough to have an article? 70.133.151.184 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The coverage he received is insignificant despite it being what we call WP:SIGCOV when regarding his disability. That is my argument and that's all that there's really to say about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say the coverage is insignificant when you also admit that it meets Wikipedia's standards for significance? Either cite policy that supports your argument or admit that Brennan is notable. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the nature of the coverage of his disease does not make him notable. 8chan and Gamergate did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability stems from the existence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The nature of the coverage is irrelevant, provided that it meets WP:SIGCOV. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the coverage is indeed taken into account. It's why we have WP:BLP1E.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E only applies when reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and other conditions are met. We have coverage in multiple contexts: his disability and computer skills, the robbery and hypothermia, the new wheelchair and other outpourings of support after the robbery and hypothermia and Gamergate, all of which is significant. BLP1E does not apply here. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• His disability limits what he can do, and computer programming is one of the few things that he can do despite it. If he were not disabled, would he have had the same interest in computers? While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can guess that the answer is probably not. So the disability lead to his interest in computers, which lead to founding 8chan. It is reasonable to argue that, were he not disabled, he probably would not have founded 8chan. So even your argument that he is notable because of 8chan makes him notable for his disability. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  That's some circular argument there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  No, it is not circular reasoning. His disability leads to interest in computers which leads to programming which leads to founding 8chan which leads to Gamergate. You argue that he is notable only for Gamergate and that the rest is irrelevant. The rest, however, are all necessary for him to have a connection to Gamergate at all. Therefore, they are important. I'll quote: "When I was a kid, there wasn't a whole lot I could do, like kid activities. … I could read, I could watch television or I could go on the computer," he explained. "Behind the keyboard, it doesn't matter that physically my body doesn't work properly." We have sources that considered him worth writing about because of his disability, and wrote primarily about his disability. Therefore, he is notable for his disability. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Not technically circular, but clearly specious given the number of computer programmers who got into the field without any disability limiting other options. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  That other programmers are not disabled does not change that Brennan can be said to have likely chosen the field because of his disability. That most computer programmers are not disabled does not mean that a disability cannot push someone towards computer programming. [Formerly 70.133.144.10] 70.133.151.184 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  So you are essentially confirming that the disability is not a separate aspect of "notability" - merely the precursor of the computer work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  Sometimes the value of the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. See Strong Emergence The combination of the disease and one of the very few fields he was able to enter created the bridge to the work he has accomplished and will accomplish in the future. TyTyMang (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  The disability being a precursor of the computer work does not prevent the disability itself from also being notable. The disability is just as much a precursor to other aspects of his notability, such as the robbery, as it is to his computer work. We have sources that covered him in the context of his disability and that covered him in the context of the robbery and its results. Therefore, he is notable for his disability, the robbery, and 8chan/Gamergate. Significant coverage exists about all of these, therefore Brennan is notable for all of these. 70.133.151.184 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is a subtext to this question that may not be immediately obvious to people not well versed with Wikipedia. If Fredrick Brennan is only notable for one thing (say 8chan, or GamerGate) then there is an argument that his article should be merged into (replaced with a link to) the article about that one thing; meanwhile deleting anything that doesn't have to do with that one thing (effectively achieving the goal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrick Brennan, though that didn't result in deletion). That's not quite guaranteed to happen, as there are other examples of people that have their own articles despite being notable solely for one thing (Mark Zuckerberg, Jerry Yang, Harper Lee, ...), but it would be an argument; you'll notice at least one "Yes/merge" opinion above that makes this quite clear. If it is established that Fredrick Brennan is notable for more than that one thing, then this article about him is less likely to be removed. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia user account

User:FredrickBrennan has submitted proof of his identity as Fredrick Brennan. He notes that he has also sent ID confirmation to OTRS, although not being an OTRS agent, I can't help with it. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Dot

Two days ago, 74.12.92.201 (talk · contribs) deleted some content and a lot of references to The Daily Dot in a series of edits, the main reasoning for which was Major BLP concerns, questionable source reliability, and also doesn't support that being a 4chan alternative was the original intent.. I disagree. Let's take the reasoning in reverse order.

• "doesn't support that being a 4chan alternative was the original intent": Well, that's a direct quote from Brennan in the Daily Dot article. "free-speech-friendly 4chan alternative", marked as such in both our and their article. Or if the complaint is the "original intent" bit, the article supports that as well: "8chan’s founder, Fredrick Brennan, created the site in response to what he sees as the ongoing and vast loss of free speech on the Internet". Here are other sources that back that it was a response to 4chan."What websites and media influenced you to go ahead with 8chan? 4chan mostly." "What inspired you to create ∞chan (8chan)? ... I just decided to browse 4chan""The site, created as a reaction to similar site 4chan (and its changing rules and policies over admissible content)" I'm adding the last one as an additional source for the sentence, to avoid splitting hairs.
• "questionable source reliability" This seems to mean that The Daily Dot is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Well:
  • We have an article on it, that says it was founded in 2011, by professional journalists, and has a large staff of professionals, some of which have their own articles.
  • It's used in 200 Wikipedia articles, including other BLPs, and clearly in a way that treats it as a highly respected source in its field:
    • Andy Carvin: "The Daily Dot recognized Carvin as second only to ..."
    • Ron Wyden: "... Wyden was named one of the top ten most influential activists of 2012 by The Daily Dot."
    • Amelia Andersdotter: "Awards: Top Ten Internet Activists of 2012, The Daily Dot"

    Those are just from some of the first few links. Clearly its opinion matters for other articles that are BLPs.

  • The Wikipedia: Reliable sources noticeboard which had a discussion about this very question and considered it reliable.
  • But of course that's all Wikipedia, we don't primarily rely on what we ourselves write, we go to other sources. Most important is whether other Wikipedia: Reliable sources consider it reliable. So let's look at the canonical "reliable sources" for articles about living people and whether they rely on articles from the Daily Dot.
    • New York Times: "It was described as ... by a columnist at The Daily Dot. ... according to The Daily Dot. ... The Daily Dot points out ... Read the full story at The Daily Dot." "What We’re Reading... recommendations from New York Times reporters and editors, highlighting great stories from around the web... The Daily Dot" "Read the full story at The Daily Dot." "The Daily Dot did the Internet a favor by compiling the best memes in one place." "... a writer for The Daily Dot, says ..." There are many more.
    • Washington Post: By Ramon Ramirez, The Daily Dot November 4, 2014 (repost of a Daily Dot story, complete ... and about Gamergate, in fact!) (Another repost of a Daily Dot story, complete) (Another repost of a Daily Dot story, complete) "The Daily Dot even published ... Per the Daily Dot, it’s meant to..." There are many more.
    • Los Angeles Times: "...he told the Daily Dot that..." "Writes Daily Dot's Aja Romano:..." "Miles Klee, writing at the Daily Dot... "As the Daily Dot reports..." There are many more.
    • Chicago Tribune: "...in a piece for the Daily Dot, Anne Thériault argued that...""according to The Daily Dot, which interviewed him..." "...as the Daily Dot's Patrick O'Neill reported..." There are ... but you know the drill by now. I'd be willing to bet that the other major US papers will also be citing The Daily Dot left and right, I'm not even going to look any more.

That's the most important reliability evidence. Even if no other Wikipedia article used the source, and if WP:RSN disagreed, and if our article about The Daily Dot said it was founded yesterday by a 10 year old, even then, with the top, most respected, most Wikipedia:reliable source newspapers in the country regularly relying on its content, it would still be a highly reliable source. Fortunately, the Wikipedia sources also agree. The Daily Dot is a perfectly reliable source for this content.

Restoring. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Pain of broken bones "meme"?

@Lucasoutloud: In regards to this edit - can you explain why the pain of 120 broken bones is some kind of joke? Is there a way to phrase this to explain that brittle bone disease in no way reduced the pain associated with the breaks that you won't consider a sick joke? --GRuban (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/baneposting Brustopher (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez. Thanks, Brustopher. So now every usage of the two words "extremely painful" is a reference to an obscure line from a recent film? Should we delete or rewrite the 434 uses throughout the Wikipedia? But OK, I'm not tied to those two words. Rewriting. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• First off, please quit getting bent out of shape about this. Secondly, it's not about the bones, it's about the phrasing of how painful it was, which is an allusion to a meme on imageboards like the one Brennan created. See http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/baneposting for some more detailed information. The current phrasing I do not take issue with. Lucasoutloud (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We should only rewrite any references that are not sourced. If it is Wikipedian paraphrasing introduced after Dark Knight Rises it is worth looking into. "bent out of shape", choice of words for this topic... 64.228.90.87 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"lead too short" tag

@SSTflyer: re your edit, want to say what you think is missing from the lead? --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree, looking at the article again there really isn't much content for expanding the lead. sst✈ 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fredrick Brennan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailystormer.com/hotwheels-why-i-support-eugenics/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211104445/http://www.davidpakman.com/fredrick-hotwheels-brennan/ to http://www.davidpakman.com/fredrick-hotwheels-brennan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary vs Complusory Eugenics

"Because of his hardships, Brennan wrote an article supporting the voluntary sterilization of people with similar severe inheritable genetic conditions. In the article Brennan states only The Daily Stormer, a white nationalist and Neo-Nazi organization, would agree to publish it.[5][6] He has since become a Christian and no longer believes in compulsory sterilization. He is even considering having a child with his wife, but still believes in genetic testing for perspective parents.[7]"

Can you spot what's weird about this paragraph? It says that Mr Brennan supports voluntary sterilization, then it says that he no longer supports compulsory sterilization. If he used to support compulsory sterilization, shouldn't that be mentioned first? For those who don't know, compulsory sterilization is what it sounds like, and voluntary sterilization is (in this case) paying people with genetic diseases $50,000 dollars or so if they agree to be sterilized. What makes it voluntary is that those with genetic diseases can forgo this payment and have as many kids as they want. I'm reading the source, and I think it's possible he never supported compulsory sterilization and the source got something wrong. I'm reading the tortoise media article and it does kind of seem that way. There's no mention of the distinction between compulsory and voluntary. I know most people find them both strongly objectionable (I don't actually know for a fact that that's true, I've never ran a poll on the subject), but hopefully we can all agree that it's a distinction worth making? Anyways, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done, since the source is the source. (The getreligion quotes the tortoisemedia profile, and that's where the compulsory thing originates, to my knowledge). I'd love to get input and see if others agree with me, and if so, whether or not there's anything that can be done. I admit the dailystormer essay has a few sentences which look like they could support compulsive when taken out of context, but if you read the whole thing it seems clear to me that he isn't advocating compulsory sterilization, although I admit he doesn't spend much time denouncing it. Is it enough to say that there is no direct quote of him supporting compulsive eugenics, and therefore it is possible that no such quote exists? I guess one thing that could be done is to find another interview where he specifically says he doesn't support compulsive sterilization. I only have a cursory knowledge of Wikipedia's rules. Thank you for your help, and your consideration. 142.254.1.208 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• All this stuff is just so much fluff. He's the founder of 8chan, that's pretty much it. The rest needs to be seriously condensed, including all these supposed viewpoints and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• I have changed it to "no longer believes in encouraging sterilisation" since I can find no evidence in the references that he ever supported compulsory sterilisation, and this looks like a simple error by Woolf. Better refs would be better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC).
  

COI WP:ER

I request that the final sentence be changed from In February 2020, the Philippines issued an arrest warrant ... to

In February 2020, a Regional Trial Court judge issued an arrest warrant for Brennan on this charge after an indictment filed in court by the Pasig City Prosecutor's Office, although the case is currently suspended due to an appeal to the Department of Justice.

References

This may be somewhat controversial, but I think it's improper to cite the arrest warrant to "the Philippines" in this case...it obscures vital information about how the system actually operates. If the DOJ appeal fails, a revert is OK, but I might have another WP:ER at that time to change the wording slightly, or to include context about extradition.

(Note: I have a WP:AN/I thread where I explain why I'm using this account and not User:FredrickBrennan.)

Thanks, Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mostly done, with minor tweaks. (Mainly using CNN Philippines to source rather than Abogado.com.ph which I don't know much about, removing the MSN source, which is just a copy of the NYTimes source, and I don't think the quote is necessary.) Thank you for the update. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all fine with me. Abogado is a trade rag, it's pretty well-known among lawyers in the Philippines but obviously CNN Philippines is a superior source. Fredrick R. Brennan (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

COI WP:ER (2)

@GRuban: Hello! I want your feedback before opening an official WP:ER for this, as if you think it's inappropriate, then really I don't think other editors need to get involved. As you've no doubt noticed by now, I've contributed to free culture and open source software for much of my life. I think that this deserves at least a sentence in my article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What I propose to be added

Post-8chan, Brennan developed several open source fonts.

I also work on FontForge, and have taken several contracts to add features to it, but no WP:RS has reported this yet. I will let you know when and if that happens...

Sources

Per WP:RSP, BoingBoing is at times an WP:RS.

• Woolf, Nicky "Destroyer of worlds, Tortoise, 2019-06-29
• Beschizza, Rob "TT2020: an old-timey typewriter typeface that doesn't look fake BoingBoing, 2020-01-03
• Beschizza, Rob "Chomsky: a blackletter typeface inspired by The New York Times' nameplate BoingBoing, 2019-12-29

@Psiĥedelisto: Looks fine to me for pretty non-contentious information like this. Will add. In fact, I think we can even do without the casual mention from Nicky Woolf, though will use it if someone complains; Tortoise Media may not be much, but Woolf seems to be a reporter with an impressive resume.[8][9] --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, where do you want it? We don't have a post-8-chan section. Though maybe we should, you seem to be getting a steady trickle of continuing coverage. --GRuban (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Done unless you have better ideas. --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

COI WP:ER (3)

I recommend removing these categories:

• Category:American expatriates in the Philippines
• Category:People from New Jersey
• Category:Place of birth missing (living people)
• Category:Typesetters

And perhaps adding these:

• Category:American typographers
• Category:People from Albany, New York

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Erroneously reported statement

The section 8chan contains this sentence:

"Brennan trusted Watkins because he knew he operated the 2channel imageboard, though at the time he was unaware of the claim that Watkins had stolen the site from its founder."

It is always a mistake to state unequivocally what someone believed or didn't believe, or knew or didn't know, because there is no way for a writer to determine this about another person.

It makes no difference whether Wikipedia guidelines are followed in terms of citing references, because there was no way for the references to determine what someone else believed, or didn't believe, or knew, or didn't know, either.

The only acceptable statement of this kind is to state that the person stated that they believed, or didn't believe, or knew, or didn't know something. That is the only acceptable way to phrase such a claim.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt the statement, but that is not a criterion for including it. 2601:200:C000:1A0:E977:A1FF:FA36:C008 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Most readers would understand that; but obviously at least one didn't, so it's worth a few words. Adding "states". --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)