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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are you guys serious? Who do you think you are? I mean, he's been canned. They tweeted about it. Do you honestly want to be 'The Website who Ignored Harassment"? Keeby101 3:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
After I spent time carefully reading the BLP policy: The blog posts that were made detailing the harrassment claim are legitimate sources. They are not self-published (or at least, one of them is, the others aren't) because the same post was cross-posted to other blogs. (In other words, Mr. Scalzi posted a post written by someone else.) The prohibition is against self-published material. However everything in those cross-posted posts is irrelvant, without a link in the chain of evidence pointing to James Frenkel, and said link is only provided in comments. The policy calls out comments specifically as never acceptable for a citation. (I've reverted my edits pre-emptively.) LrdDimwit
I've removed the {{importance}} tag from this page, as it seems to me Frenkel is quite obviously asserted to be an influential editor. (And the existance of, at this point, 79 other people in Category:Science fiction editors suggests to me that being such a person is broadly notable). Any objections? JennyRad 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
We've got people posting allegations of sexual harassment by this individual into the article based on an allegation off of someone's blog. Do we have a real source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.241.117 ( talk) 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Tor Executive Editor Patrick Nielsen announced to Tor authors today that James Frekel was no longer associated with Tor books. The article should be corrected to say he is a former editor with Tor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.108.242 ( talk) 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
DavidHobby ( talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added additional information that was recently released by the organizers of the WisCon conference under consultation of their lawyers. "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor [1] following a formal report filed against him at Wiscon 37, [2] which was widely discussed on blogs [3]" I believe this complies with BLP as this is an official statement made by a conference. In addition, it was made under the advisement of an attorney, and therefore can be presumed to not contain libel. However, this too was reverted.
In addition, looking through the logs, I see this sourced statement was also removed: "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor following allegations of sexual harassment. [4]"
This also complied with the BLP policy as it a publication with editorial review.
Lepidoptera ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion at WP:BLPN#James Frenkel where I have asked for advice about whether the sourcing information is now such that we can include this material. Sandstein 07:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
James Frenkel's ban from WisCon has been made permanent, with no opportunity for appeal: [1]. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
All three interview links at the bottom of the page are now dead. 128.119.247.147 ( talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence added at the end isn't quite right. It claims that because Jim was made GoH Liaison, several authors withdrew from the convention. That's not quite right. He had been Monica's GoH liaison, but that was changed -- possibly at her request. But then she found out he was going to be on some panels with her. THAT was the reason she pulled out. Author Patrick S. Tomlinson then followed her lead and withdrew, primarily because he felt the Convention Committee had done a poor job of responding to Monica's concerns ("Ignoring the legitimate concerns of your female guests and attendees is a no go."). Then author Catherine Lundoff pulled out, "due to Frenkel's presence on the con com and programming" (but not because he had previously been the GoH Liaison). So the spirit of the new sentence is correct, but the details are off quite a bit. I'm a little too close to the situation to feel comfortable re-writing the sentence, but I'm hoping someone else here can do that. Reading the two links the anonymous editor referred to should give you all the detail you need. Darrah ( talk) 00:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are you guys serious? Who do you think you are? I mean, he's been canned. They tweeted about it. Do you honestly want to be 'The Website who Ignored Harassment"? Keeby101 3:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
After I spent time carefully reading the BLP policy: The blog posts that were made detailing the harrassment claim are legitimate sources. They are not self-published (or at least, one of them is, the others aren't) because the same post was cross-posted to other blogs. (In other words, Mr. Scalzi posted a post written by someone else.) The prohibition is against self-published material. However everything in those cross-posted posts is irrelvant, without a link in the chain of evidence pointing to James Frenkel, and said link is only provided in comments. The policy calls out comments specifically as never acceptable for a citation. (I've reverted my edits pre-emptively.) LrdDimwit
I've removed the {{importance}} tag from this page, as it seems to me Frenkel is quite obviously asserted to be an influential editor. (And the existance of, at this point, 79 other people in Category:Science fiction editors suggests to me that being such a person is broadly notable). Any objections? JennyRad 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
We've got people posting allegations of sexual harassment by this individual into the article based on an allegation off of someone's blog. Do we have a real source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.241.117 ( talk) 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Tor Executive Editor Patrick Nielsen announced to Tor authors today that James Frekel was no longer associated with Tor books. The article should be corrected to say he is a former editor with Tor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.108.242 ( talk) 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
DavidHobby ( talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added additional information that was recently released by the organizers of the WisCon conference under consultation of their lawyers. "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor [1] following a formal report filed against him at Wiscon 37, [2] which was widely discussed on blogs [3]" I believe this complies with BLP as this is an official statement made by a conference. In addition, it was made under the advisement of an attorney, and therefore can be presumed to not contain libel. However, this too was reverted.
In addition, looking through the logs, I see this sourced statement was also removed: "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor following allegations of sexual harassment. [4]"
This also complied with the BLP policy as it a publication with editorial review.
Lepidoptera ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion at WP:BLPN#James Frenkel where I have asked for advice about whether the sourcing information is now such that we can include this material. Sandstein 07:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
James Frenkel's ban from WisCon has been made permanent, with no opportunity for appeal: [1]. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
All three interview links at the bottom of the page are now dead. 128.119.247.147 ( talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence added at the end isn't quite right. It claims that because Jim was made GoH Liaison, several authors withdrew from the convention. That's not quite right. He had been Monica's GoH liaison, but that was changed -- possibly at her request. But then she found out he was going to be on some panels with her. THAT was the reason she pulled out. Author Patrick S. Tomlinson then followed her lead and withdrew, primarily because he felt the Convention Committee had done a poor job of responding to Monica's concerns ("Ignoring the legitimate concerns of your female guests and attendees is a no go."). Then author Catherine Lundoff pulled out, "due to Frenkel's presence on the con com and programming" (but not because he had previously been the GoH Liaison). So the spirit of the new sentence is correct, but the details are off quite a bit. I'm a little too close to the situation to feel comfortable re-writing the sentence, but I'm hoping someone else here can do that. Reading the two links the anonymous editor referred to should give you all the detail you need. Darrah ( talk) 00:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)