Talk:Brendan Eich

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brendan Eich article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet C‑class

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Software: Computing C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Mozilla (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mozilla, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MozillaWikipedia:WikiProject MozillaTemplate:WikiProject MozillaMozilla

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

JavaScript C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Vital article

further investment in Brave

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

Assessment comment

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

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

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

Edit war problem in last paragraph under "Mozilla"

The last two revisions, [1] and the reversion after it from MrX, show my attempt to enforce notability and neutrality rules, and a reversion that fails to address either concern while asserting an irrelevancy.

The final paragraph under [2] has grown and suffered edit-wars as editors have tried to make a "he said / she said" collection of quotes, ending in non-neutral, non-notable, and counterfactual assertions or insinuations by Signorile and Chu.

Legally, Prop 8 was never going to "annul" any legally recognized marriages. See [3]. Retroactive law is unconstitutional law. As Domestic partnership in California details, Domestic Partner law in California preceded Prop 8 and was equivalent as far as state vs. federal powers allowed to legal marriage.

MrX, in reverting my attempt to clean up this mess by striking all but Sullivan's notable citation, wrote "This content is backed by several sources". That revert reason is both too vague (which content, Chu's or Signorile's?), and either vacuous (of course they each wrote what they're cited as writing) or wrong (see again [4] and Domestic partnership in California.

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

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

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

Proposal: edit the last paragraph to be even longer, linking to [5] to refute Signorine and Chu, to convey to the reader more documented facts relevant to this incident. Who said the only good to serve by larding this paragraph with point/counterpoint quotes, negative ones last, was to "convey to readers that Eich was both criticized and supported"? Why is that one obvious (vacuous, again) result, that controversy draws supporters and detractors, your only concern?

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

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

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

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

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

Two negative opinions as last word after Sullivan's is hardly WP:balance. Worse, Chu's words advance the falsehood that marriages would be annuled by Proposition 8 ([6]).

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

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

Where to list JavaScript articles

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

User scripts

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

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

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

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

Rating JavaScript articles

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

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

Massive conflict of interest in the sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, wikipedia :\.

I think that (besides the invention of javascript) this is kind of a defining moment of Brendan Eich's life. Siggimund (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]