Talk:Titstare/Archives/2014

Dickinson's resignation

The given source says "Two days after the TechCrunch show, Business Insider forced Mr. Dickinson to resign." It says nothing about why. Mentioning his forced resignation in the context of this article implies the synthetic conclusion that it was a result of Titstare or his tweets about it. Unless a reliable source asserting causation is produced, it stays out. betafive 05:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The source clearly says that Dickinson was forced to resign. There is no synthesis or original research, as it is in the original source material. To leave out this point, which is specifically highlighted in the article, misrepresents the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Good God, this article at Forbes, this article from NPR, this article at Salon.com, this article at Slate.com all explicitly link the events. Do I have to find even more? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you only have to find one that explicitly links his firing to his tweet about Titstare. None of those do. They all claim he was fired for a whole slew of offensive tweets, most of which were not about Titstare. betafive 15:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? From NPR: "He'd been tweeting such things for years, but it was only this week that it got enough attention to cost him his job." That is an explicit statement that the Titstare tweets let to his resignation. You're bordering on WP:IDHT now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. You might WP:KNOW that he was forced to resign because of his tweet regarding Titstare, but that's not supported by any of the sources you've given. They're all in agreement that he was forced to resign as a result of his general pattern of behavior on Twitter, not as a result of a specific tweet. How is his forced resignation relevant to the topic of this article, anyway? betafive 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with what I "know". The sources explicitly state it, as I quoted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you're trying to imply that Dickinson wrote the apology because he was forced to resign, which is also a synthetic conclusion. Give it up, none of the sources claim a causal connection between that particular tweet, his resignation, and the subsequent apology. Quit trying to edit-war it into the article. betafive 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? You're the one who's edit warring. I quoted an explicit statement by a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't; you paraphrased a source to make it seem like he was forced to resign because of the Titstare controversy. The sources do not say that. Lol, WP:IDHT much? betafive 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How much more explicit than the sources given do you think it can be? --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think they could establish a direct causal connection between the tweet about Titstare and his resignation. None do. betafive 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is how newspaper writers write newspapers, Betafive. I think you should seriously drop this, and I think you could also consider dropping those irritating know-it-all bluelinks. I used to think that was cute too, but in a content dispute it's just irritating. Thanks for keeping an eye out, Randykitty. NinjaRobotPirate, one more thing: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Good thing that you were right. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you really saying that it is the job of Wikipedia editors to infer the facts from the vague implications of the news? Newspaper writers report what they know happened. If they don't report that Dickinson was fired for that tweet, but instead repeatedly point out that he has a whole history of problematic tweets, it's because the causal connection isn't known to be there. Lacking that, it's not appropriate content for this article. This is BLP issue, so we err on the side of caution. betafive 00:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll approach this one fresh. I don't have any opinion, I don't know who this Dickinson person or his relation to events. Stand by! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Forbes source:[1] "A day after Valleywag raised a stink over Dickinson’s habit of using Twitter "... was “Forced to resign”... "Dickinson’s contretemps came at a particularly unfortunate moment". My conclusion: Forbes is not directly asserting that Dickinson is fired for his tweets or that the reaction to his tweets was a result of the Titstare controversy. They're deliberately making an implication, not a statement, because they don't know. Forbes does not imply any connection between his firing and his tweet specifically about Titstare. Outcome: source does not support Wikipedia making direct inference.
• New York Magazine:[2] "forced to resign...following an online firestorm over his long history of controversial tweets".
• Business Insider statement: (reproduced in reliable sources) "has made some comments on Twitter...has left the company, effective immediately." Analysis: coming from this source it is asserting a connection, but it is not saying which tweets are at issue.
• NPR;[3] "A firestorm forced out Pax Dickinson...after his racist, sexist Twitter feed got wide notice." I read the word "after" as asserting causation. However, it is not mentioning that it was his tweet about Titstare.
• Salon Magazine: "Dickinson’s Twitter trouble began when he lamented over TechCrunch’s apology for ... TitStare." That is drawing a direct connection.

My overall conclusion is that we do have sufficient sourcing to say that Dickenson, then CTO of Business Insider, was forced to resign after a tweet he made concerning TechCrunch's apology for Titstare and another application brought attention to a history of tweets that were seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But if we're not claiming his resignation was a result of the Titstare controversy, does mentioning it in this context meet WP:DUE? betafive 03:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. AFAIK his resignation is at least as big an event as the Titstare controversy itself, probably bigger. We probably can't or shouldn't create an article about him, or it, for WP:BLP1E reasons. Also, reviewing this, it seems that his Titstare comments were a trigger for his firing but not the real reason or cause, they just set some things in motion that led to people reviewing his Twitter feed. In that sense, I do think it is of due weight with respect to this controversy because it is perhaps part of the aftermath. As it stands, I think that reporting his Titstare comments and people's reaction to them, without mentioning that he was subsequently fired over a history of Twitter comments that were perceived as sexist, etc. (but that he defended as satirical) would be missing the bigger picture. Although I think we have enough sourcing to include his firing and the surrounding controversy, I think that if we decide that it's too irrelevant or too much of a BLP problem to include here, we should take most or all mention of him out rather than giving readers only part of the story. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are more sources that don't imply a causal connection between Titstare and his resignation. Mentioning his resignation in this article is a way of delegitimizing his opinions about Titstare. Since they're being presented for WP:BALANCE, such an editorial-voice caveat isn't appropriate. We need to have some balance to all the claims that Titstare was misogynistic; if not Pax Dickinson, then who? betafive 16:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• There need be no counterclaim, that Titstare was not misogynistic--why should there be? Is there such a counterclaim? Is there anyone besides you who argues it's not misogynistic? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Didja read Pax's tweets? betafive 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

His tweets seem to be part of the controversy more than they are a counter-opinion. It would be misleading to repeat them here without describing that context. If we merely need to show that enough people to meet WP:WEIGHT concerns defended the boob app then surely we can find someone who didn't get fired for saying so. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Our sources say that Pax disagreed with the characterization of Titstare as "misogynist." That opinion balances the many accusations that Titstare was misogynist-- which, let's be honest, it wasn't. That the sources also mention his subsequent resignation as a result of the increased scrutiny of and outrage resulting from his history of provocative tweets is irrelevant. Many sources also note he then became the CTO at Glimpse under a female CEO-- should we mention that too? betafive 00:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the sources say that Pax let loose with a sexist tweet of his own in defense of the sexist application. It is both undue and misplaced to quote his statement that Titstare is not sexist as a countervailing one rather than as part of the controversy it became. If there is a counter opinion to be found it should be a more significant source that people actually listened to. Misogyny and sexism aren't necessarily the same thing. One can be positive in one's praise, and loving in one's fixation, with female breasts, so that it is not anti-woman, but taking that into the work environment is considered sexist nonetheless and an impediment to integrating women as equal contributors to the tech scene. Most of the opinion and those factual accounts that covered that particular tweet did not bother with such distinctions, they simply called it sexist. Indeed if we are going to cover his corner of the controversy we could also mention that: (1) he defended his overall body of tweets as parody, (2) commentators said that even if in parody, repeating grossly racist and homophobic comments, like praising boobs, creates a hostile and exclusionary work environment. We could also say that he attempted to defend himself by saying he worked with a female CEO co-founder, who quit the company she founded because she could not stand his sexism, and then later reconciled. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need this false "balance", which strikes me as POV pushing through the misrepresentation of a source. Personally, I think we should go back to my original text, but I guess I'm biased. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I figure a week is probably long enough for objections to materialize. I'm not married to my original prose, but I think it represents the source fairly well. If anyone wants to reword it or whatever, that's fine with me, but I think we need to make sure that we report the whole picture, not the aspects that we personally want to emphasize. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're proposing to remove his statements because they're not necessary to balance the prevailing opinion that the app was sexist, I'm all for that. Overall, I would prefer that they remain with the addition of the chain of events afterwards because that's part of the story of the event, but I don't feel too strongly either way. So, no objection here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)