Talk:Fredrick Brennan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia user account[edit]

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)[reply]

Pain of broken bones "meme"?[edit]

@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)[reply]

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

The Daily Dot[edit]

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.

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)[reply]

"lead too short" tag[edit]

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

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

Voluntary vs Complusory Eugenics[edit]

"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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]

COI WP:ER[edit]

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,[1][2] although the case is currently suspended due to an appeal to the Department of Justice.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Victor, Daniel (27 February 2020). "Founder of 8chan Faces Arrest on 'Cyberlibel' Charge". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  2. ^ "Founder of 8chan Faces Arrest on 'Cyberlibel' Charge". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
  3. ^ "Pasig court suspends cyberlibel proceedings versus estranged founder of Nazi site 8chan". Abogado. 2020-09-13.
  4. ^ Gilbert, David (2020-02-27). "The Philippines Wants to Arrest 8chan Founder Fredrick Brennan: 'It's Basically a Death Sentence'". Vice.  "In the Philippines, it is routine to appeal an indictment to the DOJ, and they routinely quash indictments," Brennan said. "So that's basically our legal strategy that I've decided to take with my lawyer's advice." 

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

COI WP:ER (2)[edit]

@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)[reply]

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.


@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.[1][2] --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done unless you have better ideas. --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI WP:ER (3)[edit]

I recommend removing these categories:

And perhaps adding these:

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erroneously reported statement[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

COI WP:ER regarding genetic testing (§ Personal life)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
Extended content

The sentence in question:

In 2019, he considered having a child with his wife, but maintained he still believes in genetic testing for prospective parents.

This is unfortunately an edit request regarding one of the most touchy subjects that this article touches on and that I've ever had to deal with in my life so for that I apologize.

I had not for some reason noticed this in the past until a friend brought it up to me.

"Genetic testing for prospective parents" is vague wording. It does not exactly state either my beliefs or what happened. Nicky Woolf was attempting to explain the initial stages of the process of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (note please I am the author of the Commons media used in the lead on the page). The way that it is worded right now is very confusing because why would I undergo genetic testing on myself, only to have children the natural way, I already know that I am affected. So why would I need a test to tell me what I already know? No, the test was to determine my exact genetic mutation in preparation for possible future PGD with her. I still believe that for myself personally were I to have children I would make use of this technology, that is to say, the entire process of PGD, but I do not believe that it should be forced on anyone. Furthermore, I certainly do not believe that sterilization should be forced on anyone, I never have believed that. As other editors have noted compulsory sterilization was opposed by me in the original Daily Stormer article, (a publication I profoundly regret submitting to to this day).

I would like the words genetic testing somehow clarified here that this was part of a process of PGD, the same process I wrote about in that awful digital toilet paper as a younger man.

@GRuban, GorillaWarfare, and Jorm: I am highlighting you as you are familiar with me and with this article. I may not have time to answer right away this morning. Do not feel obligated to comment, I know that this is touchy, I'm sorry but people are reading this and misunderstanding what happened and it falsely portrays me as a hypocrite. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Psiĥedelisto: The problem is that neither the Tortoise nor the Stormer articles say PGD/PGT, the Tortoise one only says testing, and the Stormer says sterilization, our clarification would not be supported by any source. But! There is an easy solution that I suggest to article subjects with an internet presence: say so on your site. I see you have a Twitter listed on your page. Tweet there, something like: "The Tortoise article (link) got a bit garbled in writing that I support "genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" - what I meant there was specifically pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (link to Wikipedia article)." I think that's under the Twitter character limit? Then drop a link to it here, and we can use that as a WP:ABOUTSELF source, and clarify. Side notes:
    • I see the link to the Stormer article itself has been removed. Do you strongly object to having it? Because, honestly, I think it should be here, it's important. But if you strongly object, I won't press the point, per WP:IAR.
    • Did I mention how much I am surprised and gratified that you are active here? Not just in this article - lots of people are interested in the article about themselves - but all the others you've written and contributed to. When I wrote the beginnings of this one, I would never have imagined you'd come here and be a very good editor. Thank you so much.
--GRuban (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: I see you've been editing - can you make the tweet? --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: I'm going to close this request with "needs a source", but when you get around to making the tweet or otherwise finding a source, ping me, and I'll gladly make the change. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really see why the sentence could be read as anything about you undergoing tests yourself or believing that it should be forced on anyone. And as long as the source only talks about whether you think "governments should provide genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" and the sentence is cited to it, we can't state anything but that. Perhaps "maintained he still believes in" can be rephrased to something like "stated that he supports"? But if you never supported compulsory sterilization (which Woolf apparently got wrong) then I'm not even sure how your support for testing or you considering having a child is all that relevant for our article. I would be fine with excising the whole sentence (and merging the paragraph with the one before it). Nardog (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what he's getting at here, why it's important. A) He's a rather prominent person with a rare condition (so even if he isn't "the" face of the condition, he's certainly one of the major ones), and B) that condition has been a major factor in his life. So what he says about the condition is both important and very relevant to the article. Fortunately we don't have to excise the sentence, we can easily correct it with a simple note, as above. --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to correct though? The source said he "thinks governments should provide genetic testing for disabled people who want to have children" in general, not for people with his condition in particular. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I would like the words genetic testing somehow clarified here that this was part of a process of PGD" - see Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In other words, not "test the parents to see if they've got it" - they know they've got it - but "test each embryo". --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then AFAICS the problem lies not so much with "genetic testing" (which is the phrase the source uses after all) as with "prospective parents". We may amend it to "prospective parents with disabilities" or something because then it would be clearer it isn't about testing the parents themselves. Nardog (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI WP:ER (boring, just more category stuff)[edit]

I want to be added to Category:Atlantic City High School alumni. Source: Class of 2012 Graduating Seniors, p. 2 linked on "ACHS list of graduates". Press of Atlantic City. 20 June 2012. Thanks Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Special:Diff/1091391549 Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI WP:ER in re "Hotwheels"[edit]

Per the discussion at Talk:8chan § WP:COI WP:ER in re "Hotwheels" (mostly between @Jorm and I, to a similar COI ER I opened against 8chan), which goes into the sources and provenance of the word, I request the edit [3] by @Spaceman912 be reverted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and I'll keep a better eye out for that addition in the future. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the relevant discussion, and I agree with the reversion Spaceman912 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MFEK's original name referenced QAnon or not[edit]

At the time of posting this, the previous once-current revision of the page says that his tool MFEK's original name MFEQ references QAnon, which isn't true. On the Github source listed, the first line of the README says that "This project has nothing to do with QAnon and I oppose QAnon completely". It links to another document giving details about the case, which include the line of "I wrote § Typography on Wikipedia's Q article long before QAnon even began". Checking the edit history of said article, clicking "Find edits by user" and giving it his username here shows a list of edits from before QAnon started, which was on October 28th, 2017; the earliest of those edits was on February 3rd, 2017. Gmestanley (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fredrick_Brennan&oldid=1212654070"