Talk:Robert C. Seacord

Fair use rationale for Image:Bscc-cover.jpg
Image:Bscc-cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mls-cover.jpg
Image:Mls-cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Securecoding.jpg
Image:Securecoding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Seacord Tweet
(Text moved from User talk:Grand'mere Eugene)

I think the information that you removed here should be included. Are you opposed to any mention of this event at all, or just the wording that was used? Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A single tweet while he was a part-time faculty member does not merit inlcusion as part of his life story. Was it arrogant? Yes. Was it offensive? Yes. Was it insensitive? Yes. Was it a lawsuit? No. Was he fired over it? No. Did it make the national news? No. Did it affect his success as an expert in coding? No. Therefore, it's not encyclopedic, and doesn't belong in his bio unless it's a booklength manuscript that puts it in context of the rest of his human relationships. Devoting any space here to this single tweet would be the definition of WP:UNDUE Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of Krist_Novoselic. This seems equivalent to Seacord's tweet. I'm not arguing to focus the article on the tweet. Just to include one sentence mentioning that it happened. WP:UNDUE says "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." This was an event documented in a reliable source, that is relevant to the subject's work as an instructor. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, comparing the text on Seacord's tweet with Krist Novoselic's tweet relies on a flawed argument, WP:OTHER: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them. The content on Novoselic's tweet violates the WP:RS requirements, because the three supporting sources are COS (blog), an imgur.com reproduction of his 2nd tweet (primary source), and Facebook (not a reliable source). The Novoselic tweet content and sources should probably be tagged at the very least, perhaps outright deleted.
 * But let's pretend the sources there are adequate. The comparison is also flawed because 1) the only common characteristic of both articles is the inclusion of a twitter kerfuffle, and that comparison lacks merit on grounds of WP:NPOV regarding context. The Novoselic article is much longer than the Seacord article; Seacord's bio is much briefer, and more than half the text in Seacord's article refers to his publications, not to his beliefs. The Novoselic article puts the tweet episode in context of the rest of his political beliefs, including his response to the original tweet. But there is no such contextualizing in the Seacord article, so neutrality is apparent in the Novoselic article, and absent in Seacord's article. 2.) The backlash against Novoselic was for his expression of political beliefs, and the backlash was surely unpleasant for him, but the reactions directed at him were based on politics. Seacord's tweet was based on a personal belief that is antithetical to being a "helpful professor," so thus the reaction was against his personality, and more threatening to him personally fro being unsympathetic to struggling students.
 * I am on the fence about leaving the twitter episode in the Novoselic article because the sources fail reliability requirements. However, I oppose including the twitter content in Seacord's bio because it is not in compliance with WP's neutrality requirements and WP:BLP: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality... Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The passage that you quoted says we should have a neutral point of view when discussing facts that occurred. This means we should say that this tweet occurred, but not provide our own commentary saying that it was bad or good. However, I don't see any part of WP:NPOV that advocates against mentioning events that have been credibly reported. See also Dispute_resolution, which states "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." Is there a level at which we could describe this tweet, that you would consider a fair compromise? One of your complaints is that "there is no such contextualizing in the Seacord article." However, if we say "an article can't discuss something until there is appropriate context," that makes it substantially more difficult to start a section in the first place. Mentioning that an event occurred and referencing a reputable source is neutral. Also, I found a reputable source for the Krist Novoselic post and have added it to that article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you've missed the poin of WP:NPOV entirely, especially as it relates to BLPs. We are under no compunction to include facts from every reliable source-- in fact, quite the opposite is true. We are required to exercise judgment regarding a subject's privacy:
 * Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
 * The tweet reported in the student newspaper was a minor news event reported in a reliable publication, but one with relatively limited circulation. Citing it in this article would amount to sensationalizing to a much bigger audience on WP, in violation of WP:NPOV. It would be a very serious error in editorial judgment. Regards, Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph you quoted discusses rumors reported by tabloids. This tweet isn't a rumor. It was a documented event. I requested a third opinion about this at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)