Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 17 February 2021

|topic= not specified. Available options:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Articles for creation C‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 2 June 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 2017 December 12, see discussion. redirect to The_Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests, 2 September 2017, see discussion.

Article development

I'm willing to help explore the possibility of developing Bret Weinstein into a freestanding article. If/when I get around to starting a draft I'll link it here (if someone else has one, please link here as well). In the meantime feel free to share links here that may be of use, make suggestions, etc.
Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps as an intermediate step to developing Bret Weinstein into a freestanding article we might first spinoff The Evergreen State College § 2017 protests into a freestanding article with a Bret Weinstein subsection. There seems to be quite a great deal published about the protests, surrounding circumstances, and aftermath and much published about Weinstein intertwines with it. ––A Fellow Editor– 19:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed a prior instance of Bret Weinstein as a short article. The material therein seems of use to either an attempt at a new expanded version or to a Weinstein section of a freestanding article more broadly addressing the 2017 kerfuffles at Evergreen. ––A Fellow Editor– 14:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability change as of now

@A Fellow Editor:

was MERGE arguing that Bret is only notable for one event.

I am getting the suspicion that he is more notable as of now: Mention in NYT Intellectual Dark Web article. 117,000 Twitter followers. personal website looks richer than anonymous (i.e. panel invitations, 882 Patreon supporters, and a variety of wide reaching podcasts etc.

References

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
3. https://bretweinstein.net/

Evergreen Scandal section is disproportionate

This section is getting out of hand in terms of length--I get that everybody and their goldfish has something to say about this (since it's politically-charged), but there is already a thorough summary of this event on the college's own page. The events comprise about 6 months of Weinstein's life, and only one part of his notable history. I propose that the section should be cut down and include a link to Evergreen College's page. I'm especially annoyed at the pile of political commentary that keeps getting added here.

For the purposes of this article, the section need only describe the basic facts of Weinstein's involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukacris (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What actually happened?

I came to this article searching for information about the controversy(if there is one?) around Bret Weinstein as his name was mentioned in a talk about the increasing divisiveness in politics. It was claimed that he got 'harassed by the radical left while being left-leaning himself', so I came here to get an overview whether this was true or not and for what reason he got attacked. All this article talks about is an event and then suddenly a settlement. Since I came here without background information, I didn't learn much and will have to start over at google now. Anyway, this article needs improvement. Sorry for my mediocre English, but thanks for contributing to the Misplaced Pages project 95.222.177.164 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that last paragraph of the "Day of Absence" section makes no sense. It's horribly written and is borderline incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that, although videos exist that plainly show what happened, any summary would be an interpretation. We'd need a reliable source; opinion pieces and partisan media wouldn't be considered adequate sources except for being sources of the opinions within them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the coverage falls into these categories and that which doesn't is rather poor. For example, a random Googling led me to https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/evergreen-copes-with-fallout-months-after-day-of-absence-sparked-national-debate which at first omits the reason Weinstein objected to begin with, then offers a soft-pedaled version of it. Unlike other coverage I've seen, it indicates that special events for interested white students were held off campus, not that white students were asked (and pressured) to leave campus that day (something even the Misplaced Pages page and most other news coverage states). It shows him being mobbed, but doesn't say he was mobbed. An interview indicates that the crowd was made of minority students tired of racism, while the video shows that most of the students involved appeared to be white. That means that anyone who didn't want that information on this page could, consistent with Misplaced Pages policy, remove it for lack of a reliable source. Omitting such information results in a somewhat confusing narrative, but including it would require finding rock-solid sources and actively defending them. Without that, we get what we have here. I'll add a date to the resignation, though, since "later" is way too vague. Calbaer (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Public intellectual

Hey everybody. I don't think that we can call Weinstein a public intellectual (outside of biology, which is already documented), especially without citations to publications and speeches of notability. This seems like opinion and marketing, but this is an encyclopedia. 2604:2000:14C5:82E5:51DD:510:E078:7831 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@2604:2000:14C5:82E5:51DD:510:E078:7831: I moved your comment down here for better discussion. I put in "public intellectual". I don't see that used on a lot of other pages, so you might have a point. It probably comes down to what you feel it means. There is no doubt that he is an intellectual. He's a professor and a prominent member of the "IDW" and there's plenty of sources to back that up. And he's definitely public. But I'm open to coming up with other terms. I think I see it as a more neutral term than you do. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just the facts

@Ashmoo: Your desire to stick to the facts is laudable. However, this page needs to read in a way that makes it clear someone who looks up BW, who he is. Why is he important? Personally I think the page should read more like, "BW is a controversial person, seen by some as a victim of cancel culture and a champion of free speech and seen by others as (I'm actully not sure what) "not that"? Maybe there are some good critics of BW out there we could find. But, right now the article is too fussy in terms of "facts" and is a pretty lame read. I really doubt this page can be edited to the point where it would be an AfD, so let's work together to make it better. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. My only concern at the moment, is that the article seems to be a hodge podge of different editors throwing in sentences. This makes the article have little structure and means that the same things are said over and over. (This is the parts we disagreed on, I think). So far, my edits have just been to add structure, remove repetition and clean up the language, so that we can see what the article currently actually says. After this, we can work on the notability and pro and con views of him. My "just the facts" comment was more just to avoid multiple repetitions of 'he got mainstream media attention for', rather than any specific view of the actual facts of the article. Am I being clear here? I'll continue to make smaller edits for structure and language and hopefully we can get the article up to the quality that you mentioned. I think I share your goal for this page. Ashmoo (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ashmoo: Sounds good. I think we are in agreement too. I've been looking for a well rated page we could emulate that handles a similar type of controversy. I haven't found one yet. This BW page seems to suffer from a "who started it?" debate. The Evergreen page gives a very historical POV of the controversy. I think this page can be allowed to center BW, since it's a page about him. As long as we then give a counter narrative I feel like we can achieve NPOV.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. If you don't mind, I'll propose previous changes, one by one, so we can reach consensus. After I put a fact tag on 'Weinstein became a public proponent of free speech and a critic of transgender identity, intersectionality, and what he sees as the excesses of the far left.' you reverted it, citing WP:SKYBLUE. Could you clarify why you think this doesn't need a source? These clear positions seem to be prime material for citation in my mind. Ashmoo (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

About the SKYBLUE, I might have been wrong about the claim that he's a critic of transgender identity. Other than that, though, I think pretty much all of his public statements support him criticizing everything listed there. So it'd be hard to pick any one of his many talks and essays to support that, like saying you need evidence that Alan Watts talked about Zen. BW is definitely attacked for being transphobic, but I doubt you could find any evidence that he's actually said anything explicitly opposed to transgender people a) being transgender and b) having equal rights. But he might be a critic of the specific notion of "transgender identity. He's definitely opposed to identity politics. I'm making a half hearted attempt to find him being critical of transgender identity. If I find anything I'll let you know. Until then, I'd propose changing "transgender identity" to "identity politics." If necessary we can add a section where his critics can call him transphobic, and the reader can decide how valid that charge is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble figuring out what you are saying here. The core principle of wikipedia is that every statement (except for the sky is blue type statements) needs to be verified with a reliable source, especially biographies of living people. If there are a large number of sources for a statement, we should just choose one and use it. In your above statement, it seems like you are unsure of the veracity of the statements we are discussing. In this case, I think it is best to remove the statements and re-include them with a statement that can be verified by a good source. Ashmoo (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

I don't see the notability of his personal life, especially since all of that info is in the wikidata section. Is this truly notable? If so, does it merit repetition beyond the Wikidata box? No signature, editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:82E5:90E9:C492:D9C6:1D1B (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If a person is notable, their personal life is also notable. It's standard WP:BLOP. If you would like to nominate this article for deletion, please do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast

Weinstein's YouTube podcast might be worth mentioning/linking. https://www.youtube.com/c/BretWeinsteinTheEvolutionist

--2600:1700:B670:7230:0:0:0:5D7 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave this a shot. I'm still very much learning. If you have any feedback, I'm all ears. Thanks! Changeset

Seandevelops (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, information like this should be supported by reliable and independent sources. Hotair.com is not a reliable source, and Weinstein is neither reliable, not independent of Weinstein. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I like what you did with it. Thanks, Grayfell!

Seandevelops (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Telemeres and Greider

There have been several attempts to put BW's academic work on telemeres and his claims about Greider in the lead. These things might belong on the page, but 1) not in the lead, since thus far, he is not known for these things, and 2) the sources used do not support the claims of failure to credit or plagiarism (or whatever the charge against Greider is) as an established fact. We are allowed to indicate that BW himself, or his brother EW, makes these claims, but we have to make it clear that they are the sources of the claim. And we have to do all of this within the policy of concerning biography of living people. WP:BLP. Yes, I know, the claim is that he SHOULD be known for these things, but we at Misplaced Pages are not in the business of "should", we are in the business of what is citable by reputable secondary sources. And we have to be very careful when it comes to charges of plagiarism and intellectual theft. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Unity2020

I can see an argument that the Unity2020 movement was not significant enough for its own article, but the search redirects it to the Bret Weinstein page, and there is zero mention of it. A single sentence that it existed on this page seems appropriate, since he was its spearhead, and he did begin organizing with prominent, significant political figures like Dan Crenshaw, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jesse Ventura before it ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4800:8EE0:F81B:AAC9:5F83:7536 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• C-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/02 June 2018
• Accepted AfC submissions
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles