Talk:Kris Duggan

Controversy section of the page
Hello Rodriguezmc3 I noticed you removed a whole section of the page without explaining the reason. There seems to be a motive behind this, otherwise the whole section has been covered by top tier media outlets. Just have a look at this link of news on Google, the controversy has been covered by all media outlets and the first page of the Google page is full of the story. You tried to manipulate the edit by placing same amount of characters in the BetterWorks section and removing the a whole section and describing the edit summary (citation templates filled in, with ce and more recent citations). Please be aware of the vandalism and explain the reason here.Stangpa (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agreed with that the section for Controversies is well referenced, and have sources that are clearly WP:RS. Sources such as from Fortune and Bloomberg Quint are clearly reliable sources. Please do not remove content without explanation, and as the Controversy section and content is well sourced, WP:BLP will in fact cover its inclusion on the article.SunDawn (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll instead rephrase and reword it per Firefangledfeathers' suggestion. See my thoughts below. Rodriguezmc3 (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversy
I oppose include a Controversy section, with my reasoning well-covered by this well-respected essay. I do think the civil lawsuit is worth mentioning as it was well-covered in what look to be reliable sources. Perhaps we could put a shorter version of the existing text in the BetterWorks subsection? , I would be glad to have your thoughts since you have been objecting on WP:BLP grounds. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me clarify that I don't know all of the details behind this lawsuit, and neither do I have any kind of contact or relationship with Duggan. But I did happen to notice that someone, or a group of people, from the other side of the world kept trying to insert undue allegations into a random article that happens to be about Duggan. This of course applies to all tech guys, politicians, academics, and other BLPs in general, not just Duggan. Sexual harassment allegations of this kind are popping up all over BLPs on Wikipedia, although WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL clearly state that these are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article has also had a long history of edits intentionally meant to attack Duggan, such as and others. Rodriguezmc3 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like Firefangledfeathers' proposal is the best kind of compromise for this kind of situation, so I'll follow his suggestions. Thanks everyone! Rodriguezmc3 (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I revert per WP:BRD. My reasoning are as follows: First of all, the sources clearly claim that the Beatrice Kim sued both the company and Kris Duggan, this fact should be clearly shown, which is not seen on previous version. The text of In 2017, a civil lawsuit alleging discrimination was filed against the company. is not an accurate way to see the situation, as the case clearly targets the company and the CEO. The lawsuit causing problems for Duggan that he can't publish his book, in my opinion, is also prominent and should also be on the article. I agreed that the part could be rewritten, but I think it should be on the article. Finally, the fact that Duggan stepped down from his position, despite him denying the accusations, is also a prominent fact that should not be written out from the article. While you do not remove sources, I think you remove lots of contents that are meaningful to the case. The statement of While the company denied the allegations, the lawsuit was settled for around $1 million in my opinion, also implies that the lawsuit is not serious and the company just settle because it is convenient, not because of the seriousness of the allegation.


 * WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL never state that these kind of contents are inappropriate. It is inappropriate if it is not cited properly or using sources that are not WP:RS, and in this instances all of the sources are reliable. For instance, a look at Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump articles would tell that allegations are materials that are allowed to be in an article. WP:CSECTION advises that instead of using "Controversy" section, we use more clarifying terms, such as "Allegations of X". There is nothing in WP:CSECTION that prohibits us from creating a section for his controversies. SunDawn (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your reading of BLP and LIBEL; well covered, properly sourced allegations and controversies belong in our bio articles. I disagree with your reading of CSECTION. Its top line summary and examples make clear that mostly negative sections should be avoided. I think the article would be stronger with the lawsuit mentioned in conjunction with Duggan's activities at BetterWorks. That said, I don't feel much like arguing the point if other editors disagree. {{pb}I made tweaks to the section but left it where it is. One thing I didn't change but would like to talk through: the lawsuit also included an assault accusation against Duggan. I feel we should not exclusively be mentioning harassment and misconduct allegations. It's a bit tricky to get the wording right since it appears only Duggan, not the others, was accused of assault. Would appreciate ideas/suggestions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good day ! If there is an assault allegation I think it is quite prominent and should be on the article. SunDawn (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there! FYI, the ping doesn't work if you add the username without signing a new-line edit. Assault is mentioned in at least current sources 26, 28, and 29. I was hitting some kind of writers block earlier on trying to phrase the allegation clearly. Feel free to give it a try or I'll take a look tomorrow. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Rodriguezmc3 COI
If you analyze all edits User:Rodriguezmc3 has made to this article, it's quite evident they have vested interest to make this page puffery and remove any negative news coverage of the Duggan NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)