Talk:Hugo Schwyzer

Stubbed

I stubbed the article because in my opinion the tone and focus on negative and personal affairs was not OK per BLP. I think some of the stuff can be reinserted, but written in a more concise and careful way. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree strongly with stubbing this article for now. There's no encyclopedic value to most of this stuff, and it has the existence to cause actual harm to a living person. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is "the existence to cause actual harm to a living person"? Do you think your deletions here will cause all of the cited articles and his own writings to magically disappear from "the existence"? --Niemti (talk)

Is it likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back? No, of course not, but no individual straw is. Can you please explain the value added to the encyclopedia by containing any of the details I chopped out? That's not a rhetorical question btw. We should err in favor of conservatism in blps, especially in situations where the encyclopedia isnt harmed by doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about his well-being in either way (and we're not here to care, just to inform), but what you delete is all a well sourced content and Wikipedia is not censored, now please stop vandalizing Wikipedia, revert your deletion, and voice your opinion in favor of deletion at AFD if you want. --Niemti (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation of vandalism or take it to an appropriate administrative forum to be dealt with. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing about visiting his mother is a trivia, though.

As for the current "edit war". The burden of proof is on those who want to keep or introduce contested material in the article. And there is curently not a consensus for inclusion. I will also point to this rule in the BLP guideline: biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. The article, before I stubbed it, was not fair to the subject. It was like 75% negative or sensitive material. Look at the Van Gogh article for comparison. Also, if anyting about his personal problems should be included, it would have to be very carefully considered and written. I didn't get the impression that the un-stubbed article had been very careful about this, it was more like: I see some juicy stuff in a reliable source - it has to be in Wikipedia. But it doesn't always have to, and never in a sensational form. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus for deletion, it was there before either of us came here, AND it is still being under discussion. The guy's infamy is a large part of the subject of the article, and you even deleted a non-negative stuff, PLUS readers coming there will be misinformed or at very least underinformed, and will think Wikipedia is censored (which it isn't, contrary to your misguided beliefs), and even people coming to ADF will be confused. "Juicy stuff" is in his twitter meltdown, which is not even cited. The only obviously ireverlant thing is him visiting a mother, which is just random. --Niemti (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, but we make editorial decisions all damn day long, and it's clearly enshrined in policy that those decisions should err on the side of caution when it comes to living people. Material stays out until consensus is established to keep it in, not the other way around. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

--Like Gorman I am not claiming there is a consensus for stubbing (and there obviously wasn't when I first did it), I am rather claiming that contested material in BLPs shall remain out until there is a consensus to include it. And I am fully willing to discuss. Looking at this diff I think there are several things especially in the last section about his recent illness/problems that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWS, like "He was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold at Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula after taking a bottle of Klonopin" . We don't write details about people's hospital visits etc. expect in very special cases. I see it is done in the Britney Spears article, but she is much more famous than Schwyser and her illness just makes up a tiny part of the article article, so it appears much more carefully and conservartively written. We should consider very carefully how much of a person's personal problems and illness that belongs in an encyclopedia. Some other stuff that I removed - like the circumsion/Ricki Lake stuff - might be ok for inclusion, but the sensational stuff should be balanced with more substantial stuff. (What does he actually have to say about feminism?)// You are right that the removal may be confusing to ADF voters; but I guess they will see the discussion following your comment now, and hopefully check the article history. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hospital was also random and actually misleading, but only because it's apparently an usual procedure to hold suicidal persons in a psych for a short while in America. Mental ilness however is essential. --Niemti (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this some more, it's a very difficult case. The guy has obviously got himself in much trouble and controversies, and he has little scholarly work to balance it with. I agree now that the the "attempted murder/suicide" and "sleeping with female students" need to be included in the article as this has had severe professional consequences for him. It may be a good idea to mention which organizations and blogs that broke ties with him. Including these consequences will make it more clear why these stories are notable, and make the article appear less sensational. I think his last melt-down should be covered very lightly, like maybe two sentences. I also think the article Atlantic article "How a Male Feminist Alienated His Supporters" has some more neutral/positive material we should include for balance: He broke with the The Good Men Project due to alleged sexism (or the part of the project), he helped organize the LA Slut walk, he sees himself as a liberal feminist concerned more with the individual than fundamental structures in society, he rejects "the myth of male weakness," the notion that men cannot control or change their behavior, he's a religious Christian who leads a Christian youth organization etc. If the article is kept, and some of the controversial material is reinserted (preferably toned down), it's important to include a fair amount of non-controversial stuff as well (allthough I agree that in this case, the controversial is far easier to find). And those who choose to insert the controversial stuff have the responsibilites to insert also more neutral stuff. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for "more neutral/positive material" in case of a person now determined to inform everyone he's a shitty human being and all his "work" in the field of "gender studies" and "activism" as a "male feminist" was a scam for money, attention and sex (well, points for a honesty). Expanding article with revelant content is of course okay, but not axing stuff because any supposed need to white knight. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder to all: in the case of contentious material in the biography of a living person that may violate policy, the default position is to remove it until consensus is established to restore it, NOT the other way around. This is an almost entirely negative BLP about someone who recently tried to kill himself because of the coverage he's received on the internet, and it's using frigging tabloid sources. Discuss the issue here and do not restore tabloid gossip until consensus is reached to do so. I'm not going to claim it's so clearcut as to be a 3rr exemption, but if anyone else restores this (especially while accusing me of vandalism,) I'll be taking the situation to ANI. Nothing is lost by having minimally encyclopedic material edited out of the article until consensus is reached. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And the "frigging tabloid sources" is the interviews he chose to give. You don't need to white knight. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 2013-08-13

Pending outcome of AFD and lessening of protection level, please remove personal information from the infobox: Spouse, children's name. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. They are unsourced as it is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - August 14, 2013

Could someone please change {{stub}} to {{US-academic-bio-stub}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

edits

I made a few minor edits to try to make the article look a bit more encyclopedic and bit more BLP friendly. More does need to be done, especially the addition of higher quality sources and fixing balance/weight issues. Please keep in mind in editing this article that we both tend to err on the side of caution with BLP subjects, try to ensure only truly encyclopedic content remains, and require high quality sources for any negative claims. As an example of what I mean, I don't think that it's currently obviously that him being placed on a 5150 hold will have lasting encyclopedic value, so I've removed that info for now. (Sorry if I sound a bit out of it in this, long day.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that ideally more ought be changed here. Based on a conservative editing principe, I don't think it is necessary or encyclopedic relevant to include details about his last mental breakdown. It is enough to mention that he had one and that he is quitting the internet as a result (as his job was partly internet-related). The last sentence (Schwyzer reported...) is not needed (and only sourced to two tabloids). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Women of color

The conflict between Hugo and and a few feminist women of color should be addressed (and the criticism against him and white feminists) [1]. There seems to be quite a bit of a controversial background that goes beyond his so-called mental breakdown. Laval (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Might be relevant. Would have been good to have more on the background story (what has he actually said or done regarding Women of Color). It isn't very clear from the Guardian article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision

Do we have any sources regarding the background of this? Was he born Jewish and was simply not circumcised at birth, or did he convert to Judaism at a later date? Laval (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of his reasons but he has stated that he is half-Jewish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(Only a tiny proportion of US circumcision has anything to do with Judaism.) He goes into his reasons in detail at http://nymag.com/health/features/60133/ He was left intact because his European-born and intact father thought it was unnecessary. He had some penile problems, and inter alia, "I wanted to feel as if I was starting over sexually." -- Hugh7 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Psychopath?

I believe he has made claims that he has been diagnosed (repeatedly by several psychiatrists) as a "Cluster B" personality, meaning he has antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic personality disorders - all three of them! So he is a psychopath. Why is this not mentioned in the article? --DendroNaja (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"I believe he has made claims" is not exactly a reliable source. What is your reference? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been self-claimed repeatedly. There's even a tag on his blog just for it: "narcissism-and-borderline-personality". Or to be precise, that he's "one, some, or all of" according to different shrinks, not necessarily that he's consistently (or even ever) identified as all three at once. These posts may be acceptable by way of WP:ABOUTSELF, if put in the correct context. Though perhaps "unduly self-serving" might be a concern. While they've been repeated in some third party sources, none of them seem to rise to the level of reliability. 84.203.37.167 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Felony DUI charge

[2] This is a very serious charge and he likely faces some prison time if convicted. I don't know if the current trend in WP is to report these kinds of things in BLPs until there is a conviction or not, but here it is. Cla68 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bio or trash piece?

This reads less like a biographical entry and more like an attempt to simply trash this man. It does not seem at all "Wikpedia-like." It's clear there is a lot of controversy around this man, but the level of gross detail is unnecessary. It reads as though whoever wrote this just has a hatred and bias about this person and is unable to view him through a clear lens. The events can be referenced without the implications and conclusions that are drawn here. It also leaves out what I understand to be a significant influence in online feminism that he had and the level of focus he brought to men in feminism. It's obvious he has detractors, but it looks like they all got together to write this. I don't know how you call for a fair review of an article on here, but I think this needs one badly.

38.75.16.42 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)IsThisFair?

Well, 38.75.16.42, the philosophy here is WP:BRD or DIY (do it yourself)...if you see an article that needs fixing, it's time to get to work and make it better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone update this with the latest on his DUI? And the Los Angeles Magazine story?

This is a rank trash piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.243.146 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

HugoSchwyzer.net

All links to HugoSchwyzer.net (and there are a lot) now appear to be dead. Can somebody find some archive versions? GrindtXX (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Done - BTW, finding anything like this as simple as looking on http://archive.org - unless the author has directed a bot to block archiving, most we pages will be archived there. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Hugo Schwyzer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518093156/http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2006/06/23/hubert-rg-schwyzer-1935-2006-the-obituary-updated-with-pictures/ to http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2006/06/23/hubert-rg-schwyzer-1935-2006-the-obituary-updated-with-pictures/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131010062920/http://www.hugoschwyzer.net:80/2013/10/08/official-statement-on-leaving-pcc/ to http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2013/10/08/official-statement-on-leaving-pcc/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2015/03/31/march-2015-update/#comment-1712266
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2015/03/31/march-2015-update/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120801045829/http://www.hugoschwyzer.net:80/2008/05/20/three-divorces-four-successful-marriages/ to http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2008/05/20/three-divorces-four-successful-marriages/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110822203958/http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/02/28/a-season-for-everything-save-shame/ to http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/02/28/a-season-for-everything-save-shame/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)