Talk:Dylan Evans

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

How to address the current controversy?[edit]

Several possible approaches:

  1. No mention at all
  2. No mention until a consensus is arrived at: the upside of this is that the overall significance of the events can be used to determine how much space should be given to the controversy. (I.e. It would be a lot more significant if there were negative repercussions for one or more of the involved parties.)
  3. A brief mention: the upside of this is that it shouldn't have issues with WP:UNDUE, though it would require very careful wording to avoid issues of WP:BLP for all parties involved.
  4. A brief mention with a link to a separate page for the controversy proper: this might avoid issues of WP:UNDUE, with space for details.
  5. Other.

Currently the situation is one of 1 or 2. An argument for 2 above others might be from WP:NOTNEWS. An argument for 3 might be that a brief, carefully worded mention (being mindful of WP:BLP) is better than none, though no mention is better than a bad one that breaches WP:BLP.

Some might argue for 1 on the grounds that the controversy is a nine days wonder.

Any suggestions, particularly for what number 5 might be?Autarch (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one brief vague sentence would be appropriate for now. I think it's important not to get deeply into this issue unless/until the article itself is expanded more generally. Not sure whether that will happen -- I'm not even sure how notable he is (though I doubt an AfD would result in deletion). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - a brief mention with an appropriate reliable source would be fine without risking WP:UNDUE. It would probably fit in even better if the article was rewritten with appropriate sentence/paragraph structure instead of choppy resume-like points. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In Xxx yyyy, a complaint was filed with zzzz against Evans. It is currently being investigated." (or something like that). –xenotalk 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current sentence doesn't seem to present the situation in an unbiased way. What's missing is that he has been widely criticised for relasing confidential documents on his facebook page in which the name of the colleague is clearly identifiable (see, e.g. http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/bringing-the-veil-down-on-the-fruit-bats/), so that some of his initial supporters have retracted their support (http://www.stephenkinsella.net/2010/05/18/fruitbatgate/). Also, he is now under investigation for breach of confidentiality and the case is going to the High Court (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=412353). So, I think, saying that he was completely exonerated and is petitioning for academic freedom is a very skewed summary of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.137.27 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sources would not meet WP:RS, and we won't report that he has been "criticized" unless the sources are quite good. As for the Times Higher Ed story, the way you write it, it sounds as if the High Court is considering whether he has done something that constitutes breach of confidentiality, and as I understand it that's not the right interpretation. In any event, the current version is surely far less skewed than what was added previously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the point the person above is trying to make is that the current version essentially only reports the view of his campaign. Although I agree that we can't just pick some blogs, I still feel quite uneasy that important aspects are not mentioned: Regarding the original harassment case, the result of the investigation was not as clear cut as it appears here, and, more importantly, he does now face disciplinary action for allegedly releasing confidential documents. And this is reported in mainstream media, e.g. the THE "UCC launched disciplinary action against Dylan Evans, lecturer in behavioural science, for allegedly leaking to the media confidential college material related to a sexual harassment case." (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=412353). This is not resolved, although the uni proceedings are halted until the case is heard in court. I think we should at least add a sentence like "In the course of the campaign, confidential documents and the identity of the colleague were leaked, and UCC has launched disciplinary action agains Evans for alleged breach of confidentiality." Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"were leaked"?? By whom? We can hardly say that it was by Evans -- that's what is under investigation. If we don't know that it was by Evans, then why on earth would we want to put that in his BLP? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not saying that. We are saying that UCC has started disciplinary action, which is what is reported in the media and therefore supported by appropriate sources. This is quite a difference. Also, you could turn your argument around and say that we can't report that he was "exonerated" because the result of the proceedings isn't actually public. You qoute that only from THE. So if you can quote that, why can't you quote that he is being investigated? Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can try again for a different formulation, but to write "In the course of the campaign, confidential documents and the identity of the colleague were leaked..." in a BLP of Dylan Evans is to imply quite strongly that it was leaked by him, something he has denied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but whether he likes it or not, it is a fact that the "UCC launched disciplinary action against Dylan Evans, lecturer in behavioural science, for allegedly leaking to the media confidential college material related to a sexual harassment case." It's simply part of the case now and for Wikipedia it doesn't and shouldn't matter if he agrees or not. I have suggested a phrase that is based on sources in the media and that is careful in not reporting anything that can't be supported, so unless you give me a source that proves that he is not facing disciplinary action for allegedly leaking these documents, there is really nothing further to discuss from my side. In any case, you seem to have very strong feelings in support of Evans, and having seen some of the flame wars in the blogosphere about this issue, I have absolutely no intention of discussion the matter further. I propose we wait a few days if other authors comment, and then add the sentence as I suggested above. Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring an intention not to participate in discussion here is not exactly a way forward. Since you haven't done much editing at Wikipedia, then if you are interested in doing some work around here you might do well to read a bit: WP:BLP & WP:NPOV for starters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is (another) strawman argument from you. My sentence was a conditional sentence and I'm happy to discuss if the conditions are right. So please do provide a reliable source for your claim that he is not "facing disciplinary action for allegedly leaking the documents". I have given a source that supports that statement, so if you want to discuss this, then please give arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Matthiesen (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more neutral summary of the findings is that "Dr Dylan Evans was found guilty on one charge of sexually harassing a colleague while a second charge was not upheld". The President of UCC described the finding as "sexual harassment" when imposing sanction, stating "Behaviour of this type is utterly unacceptable and should any further complaint of sexual harassment made against you be upheld, I will have no hesitation but to proceed with the university's disciplinary procedures" in a letter of February 2010 (the leaked document appears to be available in various blogs, but see http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lecturer-fights-sanctions-after-showing-colleague-batsex-article-2182555.html). The findings of the investigation into the complaint of sexual harassment stated "Having considered the complaint we find that the complaint as made falls within the definition of sexual harassment in the University's Duty of Respect and Right to Dignity Policy. // There is considerable conflict of evidence in relation to interactions between the parties. Dr Evans has produced email evidence that casts serious doubts on some of the evidence of Dr Salerno Kennedy. // We find that on the balance of probability that Dr Evans did not ever intend to cause offence to Dr Salerno Kennedy. He was not aware that he may have been causing offence by visiting her office and Dr Salerno Kennedy admits she was not sufficiently assertive in making clear her displeasure at his visits to her office or other behaviour. We cannot therefore find that any of the actions of Dr Evans up to November 2, 2009, constituted sexual harassment and do not therefore uphold those complaints. It is clear that these complaints are not malicious. // However, on November 2, 2009, it is a fact that Dr Evans showed Dr Salerno Kennedy an academic article which Dr Salerno Kennedy claims was inappropriate and offensive and which made her feel hurt and disgusted. Dr Evans was emphatic in saying that Dr Salerno Kennedy showed no such signs and on the contrary was amused by it and requested a copy. The question for us is whether Dr Evans's action can reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating to Dr Salerno Kennedy. // We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for Dr Salerno Kennedy to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone. // We therefore find that this action is upheld though it was not Dr Evans's intention to cause offence." (as above, the leaked text is widely available, but see http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sex-harassment-row-sparks-global-debate-2191288.html). ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.212.31 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an interesting question whether a primary-source document is usable in a BLP given that it has been published in a regular newspaper. In general we wouldn't use primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. You might try raising the question at WP:RSN. In any event you as well might want to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you are weaponising Wikipedia policy rather than attempting to address the current controversy by creating a neutral replacement to correct the false impression given by the word "exonerate". ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.212.31 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.11.2010 Undo - The word "exonerated" is an insupportable personal interpretation - the investigators upheld one of the two complaints of sexual harassment, the university president confirmed that a complaint of sexual harassment had been upheld and Dylan Evans himself said: "I can live with the sanctions, but I cannot live with a factual finding of sexual harassment against me -- it has serious career implications for me." (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/notorious-fruit-bat-research-wins-ig-nobel-prize-2378526.html). The media, political and feminist issues of "#fruitbatgate" rest on the (widely reported) factual finding of sexual harassment. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.140.223 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "exonerated" is used by the source you keep deleting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is used in a single opinion item in a non-prime source, the Times Higher Education Supplement. Every national Irish newspaper has concluded that one allegation of sexual harassment was upheld and that Dylan Evans is subject to disciplinary sanction - "A British scientist has been disciplined for sexual harassment by his Irish university for showing a female colleague a research paper about fellatio in bats". Sunday Times, May 17, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7128911.ece "external investigators found that he had sexually harassed a female colleague." Irish Examiner, 19 May 2010, http://www.examiner.ie/archives/2010/0519/ireland/college-chief-rejects-cases-web-campaign-120171.html "A UCC lecturer has claimed the upholding of a complaint of sexual harassment made against him over showing a female colleague a research paper on the sexual activities of bats is an example of how academic freedom is being stifled". Irish Times, 18 May 2010, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0518/1224270600048.html "Dr Dylan Evans was disciplined by University College Cork (UCC), which upheld an allegation of sexual harassment made by one of his colleagues" Irish Independent, 14 October 2010, http://www.independent.ie/national-news/notorious-fruit-bat-research-wins-ig-nobel-prize-2378696.html "Not only has he been found guilty of sexually harassing ... he is now facing the full force of the university's disciplinary machine (for) publishing confidential documents about the harassment case online". Irish Mail on Sunday, 23 May 2010
Dr Dylan Evans himself said "I can live with the sanctions, but I cannot live with a factual finding of sexual harassment against me" http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/notorious-fruit-bat-research-wins-ig-nobel-prize-2378526.html
The reliance on one minority-opinion non-prime source is not an acceptable balance. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.220.220 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source: "Mr Evans said: 'I assumed the findings had exonerated me and was relieved to have been cleared.' However, UCC president Dr Murphy, refuted this. He said the investigators had upheld the complaint regarding showing her the article about oral sex among bats and that this amounted to sexual harassment." (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ucc-defends-handling-of-harassment-complaint-458134.html). It seems to me that it is only Evans himself who keeps saying that he has been "exonerated" (and media reports that only quote his opinion, but clearly the university sees that differently. Clearly, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV state you should not use "self-published" sources about a person, and in my opinion his petition and his own press-releases are such sources. As these are the only ones that make him "exonerated", it seems clear to me that there is no justification for stating that he was "exonerated". Instead, we have to report that "one complaint was upheld" (as supported by numerous sources, see the list above), although we can add the comment that Evans himself "claims that he was exonerated". Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: the hearing at the Irish High Court is on 1 November (you can look this up somewhere on their website). So it may be worth waiting a few days as surely next week we will get another bunch of media reports, and perhaps the situation will be a bit clearer; hopefully we then have some public documents rather than rumours, leaks and personal opinions about a confidential procedure. Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the word "exonerated" is not tenable and Nomoskedasticity perhaps has a conflict of interest. Clearly a complaint was upheld and Dr Evans had accepted as much in saying "I cannot live with a factual finding of sexual harassment against me" (reference above).ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.238.105 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@StephanMatthiesen -- which sources am I relying on that are self-published? None, in fact. The reference I am using here is from the Times Higher Education -- surely no problems with reliability there, yes? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, THE is fine in principle, but I think you have to look at context. The article was published on 17 May, 3 days after the start of the petition, and is one of the first mainstream articles at all. At that time there was no information out other than what Evans (or the petition) had provided. The university at that time was not able to comment (other than that confidentiality has to be upheld). On the other hand, if you look at Evan's Twitter at that time, you'll see that he had been busy all weekend contacting about every media outlet you can think of. So in this situation, there weren't really any other sources the THE could have used, other than Evans and his campaign. And, well, the text does read like a rewrite of the petition text, with some added quotes from the signatures, but with little sign of critical evaluation.
Second point: Even at this early stage, other reports - presumably based on the same material - interpreted it differently. For example, Science Insider (surely at least as reliable as the THE?) has a story on the same day which is much more cautious (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/fruit-bat-sex-chat-prompts-sexua.html).
As far as I can see, later reports almost never repeat that he had been exonerated, or they report it as the source I gave above, saying that he "assumed" that he was exonerated, while UCC maintains that he hasn't. In some later reports (quote above) it even becomes clear that Evans himself says that the comlaint has been upheld. The view of UCC is, in my opinion, actually the more important one, as they did the investigation.
In any case, it seems to me quite skewed to take one single early report at face value and dismiss all the other later sources (which have the benefit of additional statements from UCC) that state that one complaint was upheld. You see, I have no particular agenda here for or against Evans, but I'm just not happy that only interpretation is presented, which seems to me at odds with the facts.
So I suggest that we either do not state any conclusion and just say that he was investigated, or alternatively we make clear that UCC and Evans have different interpretations about the findings of the procedure.
The problem at the moment is that everything, including all the media reports, is only based on rumours and a few leaked documents, spiced up with a lot of angry talk about some peoples' pet issues. But nobody - none of the journalists and certainly none of us - can investigate what happened and if the leaked documents and rumours give anything of a complete picture. So I think we do have to be careful not to favour one interpretation, but that applies in both directions.
My main suggestion would be that we just wait a few days to see what the High Court does. They do have access to more documentation and are better equipped for an unbiassed evaluation. As I understand it, they are not investigating the merit of the sexual harrassment case, but at least they will give a verdict whether the university handled it properly, and I think once we know that, it may be much easier to make sense of some of the other issue. (Oh, and due to some other committments, I may not be able to say anything for a week or two) Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly willing to wait as suggested, before editing on that topic further. I'm glad to hear that you don't have an agenda here (I'm more worried about our non-account friend, who is clearly het up). Since Evans has chosen to make this a very public issue, it clearly deserves to be covered to a certain extent. But I will resist allowing it to dominate his BLP -- the relevant policy being WP:UNDUE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the word "exonerated" which does not appear in or accurately reflect the investigators' report, the conclusion of which is available to us in reputable sources. The appearance of this word in one alternative source does not justify its inclusion here. I am also removing the name of the complainant, which should not appear in a report of an allegation of sexual harassment.ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.155.165 (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting, I have now applied the changes you describe here without removing the reliable source footnoted. Fæ (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

One bit of vandalism reverted this evening only a few minutes after it happened.Autarch (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a fully referenced comment summarising a finding against Dylan Evans that has been widely covered in the media over a significant period. The finding is fully qualified and the result of finalized deliberations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.221.145 (talk)

It definitively failed to satisfy WP:NPOV, in my judgment. It is a thoroughly one-sided presentation of an episode that had different analyses/interpretations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wording that IP 109.78.221.145 is attempting to insert is definitely not neutral and the length of the negative content is certainly a case of WP:UNDUE in relation to the rest of the article. I attempted to remove the info myself but was caught in an edit conflict. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Evans was, definitively, found guilty of sexually harassing a female colleague: "UCC’s human resources department ordered an inquiry. External experts Sheena Clohessy and John Horgan interviewed both parties and found considerable conflict of evidence. The investigators found the actions of Dr Evans up until November 2nd did not constitute sexual harassment and said the complaints by the female lecturer were not malicious, but upheld the complaint over the November 2nd incident with the paper on the bats, adding “it was not Dr Evans’s intention to cause offence”. UCC president Dr Michael Murphy asked Dr Evans to engage in counselling and to complete a period of monitoring, and warned disciplinary procedures would be invoked if any further complaint of sexual harassment was upheld against him in future. Dr Evans disputed that a finding of sexual harassment had been upheld." [1]

IP, I've read that article, and I've read others, and I am not going to agree to your edit.
Ponyo, one (or perhaps all) of those edits should be "revdeleted" (in part because of the edit summary) -- do you know how/where to request that? I could go to AN/I, but if you are more familiar with how that gets done... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since any admin can help with the revdelete, it would attract less attention if you broached an online admin on their talk page as opposed to posting on the giant ANI dramaboard. If you can't find one currently online, then perhaps AN would be slightly quieter venue to make the request. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've put in a request for revdel for you. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As regards 1), you are absolutely correct and the word should be "harassment", the offence that Evans was found guilty of. As regards 2), the largest single contribution to debate made by Evans is through the effect of his online petition for freedom of academic debate and it is therefore duly weighted to Evans' international reputation.[2]

Please sign all comments on talk pages.--Artiquities (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Irish Times".
  2. ^ "Dylan Evans petition - Stop UCC from abusing its harassment policy to limit academic freedom".

Protected[edit]

I don't know what's going on on this page, and I have little knowledge on the topic. But there's some type of content dispute here, and so rather than discussing it, it's just been an edit war. If you guys come to some form of consensus, let me know and I'll remove the protection. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always gratifying to see an admin take action after saying "I don't know what's going on on this page, and I have little knowledge on the topic". FWIW, I have been trying to keep this guy from getting smeared but have had to refrain from removing stuff on pain of breaking 3RR. Well, at the moment the article isn't as much of a hatchet job as it has been at times over recent days. All the same -- perhaps we could get rid of this unsourced gem: "Evans terminated the experiment when the volunteers became convinced that the scenario they were enacting was actually true." I'll add an edit-request template if necessary, but HelloAnnyong perhaps you've watch-listed this one?
As for the rest -- yes, actually, it's true, we're meant to discuss changes, particularly (per WP:BRD) after an edit has been rejected. I've been rejecting a number of edits here, because it's clear to me they are designed to smear rather than to improve the article (e.g. this one). I'm not sure if they IPs are going to discuss, but I suppose we'll see. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editrequest}} Please remove "Evans terminated the experiment when the volunteers became convinced that the scenario they were enacting was actually true." from the "Utopia Experiment" section -- it is unsourced and tendentious, likely added as a way to make Evans sound a bit nuts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the best recent version seems to be yours (Nomoskedasticity) and I suggest to the admins to restore that version for the time being: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Evans&oldid=400190658. May I point out that I have no particular interest either way, and as you see above, I have clashed with Nomoskedacity on previous edits, so I hope you can see that perhaps as a neutral opinion. From my understanding of the media reports, this version reflects the basic points of the court ruling very well, and in particular, all the reports agree that only the actual sanctions were quashed as disproportionate, but not the findings of the investigation as such, i.e. the sexual harassment issue stands (as well as the breach of confidentiality issue). This is also clearly reported by Hannah Fearn in the THE, who has been clearly on the side of Evans in previous articles: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414495. I don't really have time for a lengthy discussion right now, but I do think that the current version is very biased and ignores everything that is not in favour of Evans, so I suggest restoring the version by Nomoskedasticity. Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to revert to this version if there is consensus to do so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested previous version by Nomoskedasticity is certainly more balanced, as well as being more comprehensive and more concise. Stephen Mathiesen's suggested Times Higher Education article http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414495 is more complete than the Irish Times (Breaking News) source and can replace it without modifying the text. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.51.174 (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dylan Evans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dylan Evans. 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) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to address the current controversy, 2023 edition?[edit]

Looking at the history on this article, there seems to be a lot of reverting going on about Evans's recent tweets regarding the Holocaust. I don't know if this qualifies as an edit war yet, but it seems on track to. There's a lot of mention of policies in some of these reverts, but I think we should really take it to the talk page so we can explain our concerns more clearly.

I've tried to add in a terse, neutral summary which draws few conclusions, but I don't know whether this satisfies everyone's concerns, as I added it before I realized there was this much disagreement.

—Ilzolende (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not by whitewashing over it and deleting updates. 2600:4040:A651:EE00:A1A5:8447:B500:FAA4 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia revert policy is actually pretty favorable to removal of unsourced contentious material about biographies of living persons, making it a specific exemption to policies against repeated reverting: see WP:3RRBLP. Re-adding the material without an understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is just likely to get you reprimanded for edit warring. —Ilzolende (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As my contribution to this article (aside from a template saying a dispute exists) has also been reverted, I'll elaborate on my understanding of the situation here:
  • The HarperCollins author page for Dylan Evans claims that www.dylan.org.uk is Evans's personal website.
  • www.dylan.org.uk links the Twitter account 'evansd66' which made the tweets being discussed.
  • We have an archive link for at least one of the tweets, not just screenshots and third-party mentions of the now-deleted tweet.
  • WP:BLPSELFPUB appears to permit self-published material by the subject of the biography based on specific criteria which I believe this tweet should effectively meet:
    1. it is not unduly self-serving: it expresses a very socially unpopular opinion
    2. it does not involve claims about third parties: it expresses a personal opinion
    3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject: it expresses an opinion regarding events, and is not being cited as a source on the events themselves
    4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity: Evans's Facebook page makes no mention of a hack, and nobody online seems to be talking about a hack either, I don't know where the hack hypothesis came from
    5. the article is not based primarily on such sources: most of the article is about other topics
I propose that we look for any sources regarding the alleged hack, and if there's no evidence for it, we include a mention of the archived tweet with as little attempting to draw conclusions as possible.
—Ilzolende (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Evans has come out on his Facebook page and made it clear that it was a hack. Unless we have any evidence to the contrary, it seems we have no option for now but to take him at his word. Wikionego (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! Let's see about getting the statement about a Twitter account hack into the article. —Ilzolende (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Would you like me to take a screenshot? Wikionego (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a publicly viewable Facebook post, I figured we could link it as a citation directly for now until something better gets figured out. I also saved it to the Internet Archive in case it gets deleted. I don't think screenshots are relevant to the article, they're extremely easy to fake. —Ilzolende (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems the best course of action for now. I think you're latest version is a fair and neutral account. Wikionego (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. BLP is not negotiable. It needs to be covered in a secondary source, not Wikipeida editors striving for neutral coverage of a tweet. Stop adding it. If it's significant, CNN or some other outlet that's a third-party reliable source will cover it. That's the BLP standard. If the only sources are Twitter and Facebook, it needs to be removed regardless of how "neutral" an editor thinks it is. --ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are taking it as face value as a "hack" it has no place in his biography as he didn't make any of the comments. It fails SELFPUB if he didn't make it. Nobody else has covered it. ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for your explanation. —Ilzolende (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dylan_Evans&oldid=1205937246"