Talk:Sam Brinton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date of arrival at DOE

The current Wikipedia article says "Samuel Brinton (born c. 1988) is an American nuclear engineer and LGBTQ activist appointed to be the deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy in January 2022."

But a tweet from Sam, https://twitter.com/sbrinton/status/1542288527920185344?s=20&t=2q6KZUc2ZchJf2wjDX3aWg, says "It’s official. As of June 19th, I now serve my nation as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy in the Department of Energy." so the January 22 date may be for a different position pending the deputy assistant secretary position. Mjmarcus (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the July 2022 Bastille Day trip shows that they are in an official position. There's an RS for the January 2022 appointment, but no RS for the June 19th date, as twitter isn't RS. BBQboffin (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal issues section

I know the media sources that are reporting on this story probably dont meet wikipedia's guidelines, but I invite anyone who doubts the information presented to look at https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/CaseSearch and look up "27-cr-22-21567" sans quotes. Its a shame you cannot permalink from MCRO 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:0:0:0:13B5 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In general, we don't use trial transcripts and other court records in our articles. I think the reporting from Exchange Monitor (a respected nuclear energy business publication) taken together with the other sources show that this is verifiable by citations to reliable sources.

I'm a bit less sure that the reporting warrants us mentioning the potential penalties for felony theft in Minnesota in the lead of the article. While it might be warranted in the body, this feels a tad bit unbalanced in its current form; that an alleged crime which this individual has not (yet) been convicted takes up a third of the lead doesn't sit well with me, even if a sentence noting the existence of the charges may be warranted in a more complete lead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

At some point it might be advantageous to ask ourselves why there is zero coverage of this story in any news source commonly used on Wikipedia to source facts. Maybe we have a JournoList 2.0 type situation where they're settling on a narrative behind the scene before putting out any coverage of the event? (Assuming they do cover the event... eventually.)

If the actual goal is to provide a NPOV article, restricting sources to only the type of outlets that create a fictional battle in Syria based on doctored videos of a Kentucky gun range (with spectators) seems like a bad idea. Otherwise you're susceptible to outlets that boldly "lie with the truth"; like when one National outlet tells viewers that the Del Rio bridge migrants of 2021 were resettled in "Haiti and other locations" 174.250.8.7 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Red-tailed hawk that this is undue weight in the lede and I removed it. If there's more coverage on it in the future and Brinton becomes known for it (balanced with many years of coverage of their work in the nuclear industry, LGBTQ youth suicide prevention, conversion therapy, etc.), then we can add that when appropriate. As for inclusion in the article at all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and we're not in competition to get a story out. If the sources "probably don't meet wikipedia's guidelines" then the potentially libelous content to a WP:BLP really ought should be removed immediately. BBQboffin (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I am very happy to hear of such policies as WP:NOTNEWS which seem to allow the editors wide latitude in deviating from the NPOV Prime Directive, but only when the circumstances require it.

What is the best way to bring this "ace in the hole" to the attention of the woke editors that rushed to edit the Seymour Hersh article to add information about his extremely recent and newsworthy reporting on the Nord Stream Pipeline? (Some) edits are now calling Mr. Hersh a "conspiracy theorist".

Byzantine selectively evocable policies seem to be a great help when we need to memory hole something unpopular with the site's editor cabal. For example, it could be used to "reinterpret" the mRNA research credit when a specific person expresses wrong-think, even when that person's qualifications trump the average editor's expertise. 2600:1001:B0E2:E50:7062:35E3:C0D3:FFFF (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't the case that there is zero coverage of this story in any news source commonly used on Wikipedia to source facts; there's a fairly long article in The Telegraph (a UK quality press outlet) about this, but also Wikipedia cites plenty of things like local news outlets when covering it. NPOV wouldn't bar us from covering this, but it would ask that we probably expand the lead to be more comprehensive if we cover this in the lead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, well, now that this part is sourced by the Independent and the Telegraph, that answers my objection. BBQboffin (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation quality for Legal issues section

There's [5] and [6] linking to a Fox News story about Brinton claiming dismissal for felony charges. Fox links to Alpha News MN which seems to be a right-wing website that makes up news stories to be used on other sites. 209.237.172.4 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. The IPv6 user above provided the case number "27-cr-22-21567" that can be looked up from the Minnesota courts CaseSearch database. Looking at the database, there is indeed a felony charge listed against a "Brinton, Samuel Otis" for violations of Statute 609.52.2(a)(1), which is a statute that defines acts of theft. In other words, the reporting on the charges checks out. There's also a nuclear energy business publication that's reporting on this if you'd prefer to cite that in the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I had the unfortunate situation of using a cellphone's browser while attempting to see the citations for this article's recently edited subject matter and the mobile courts site cited above was not navigable in a way that allowed me to search for the case number in question. Having found my laptop I can now see this information. Due to the source of the information that had led me to this article originally as stated in your previous response to another user above I wasn't sure the information could be trusted and thought perhaps someone had edited the article maliciously. Tomhardle (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You say "Probable false citation" followed by "which seems to be a right-wing website". As badly as we need this story to go away, this is factual. Good work trying to cover things up, though. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to request donations as a reliable source of information, they would not try to dispute and defray facts.

This persons is currently NOT in the position stated on Wikipedia and is on Leave of Absence due to this theft. The current person in this position is another individual altogether.

" Kim Petry was asked to stay on as acting deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition “for the foreseeable future,” she wrote in an email to colleagues late last week. "

https://www.exchangemonitor.com/brinton-on-leave-of-absence-from-doe-petry-asked-to-stay-on-as-acting-nuclear-waste-chief/?printmode=1 104.139.32.251 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

When somebody relatively senior is on a (prolonged) leave of absence, it makes sense that somebody would be named "acting" in their place. Even Exchange Monitor refers to the article subject as still holding that position, even if on a leave of absence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply anonymous user, the citation linked to a right-wing website and the sourcing through them was difficult to find since most of their posting is inflammatory language and the actual event is an aside. 209.237.172.4 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Given that the Alpha News source insists on using he for Brinton, and that also on their front page are articles about how TikTok causes people to undergo sex changes and gay marriage is "radical", I would say it is pretty clear that Alpha News is unreliable. I think that source should be removed from this article. Edit: nevermind, done by Tristario. Endwise (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't even notice there was this discussion going on on the talk page, I should have checked. But yes, I replaced the sources with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why did you remove the Exchange Monitor references? It seems like a higher quality nuclear energy business publication. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  I removed that before looking at the talk page. I wasn't sure about its reliability, but looking at it now my assessment was probably wrong. You can add it back in if you want Tristario (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  General note, and in response to Red-tailed hawk, you are correct. Exchange Monitor is most definitely a high-quality nuclear energy business publication.--FeralOink (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your alma mater is where you go to college, not grad school

Can someone change this in the box? Or make it say "institutions" and put both MIT and the state school? Also, "charged with allegedly" stealing sounds idiotic. Will this person be "convicted of allegedly" stealing? Are we assuming our readers are so stupid that they don't know how the criminal justice system works and what it means to be charged with a crime? 2600:1012:B05E:8E35:2090:B8E8:8C1:245 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed with respect to the alma mater v.s. education part of the infobox. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The sentence now says ... Brinton was charged with theft after allegedly stealing a suitcase from a Minneapolis airport baggage carousel. Is that better? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's pro level stuff. Thanks, hawk. I wish you many snakes and rabbits in your future. 2600:1012:B05E:8E35:2090:B8E8:8C1:245 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

Why is Wikipedia entertaining his idea of pronouns? He is not more than one person. 2603:9001:9200:5E96:B9DE:F28E:50A7:3D72 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. There are discussion areas elsewhere where rules and changes to MOS can be debated, but that place is not on individual articles or their talk pages. The good work of editors is to implement the existing rules/MOS on the individual articles. BBQboffin (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"[...] but that place is not on individual articles or their talk pages."

I'm confused: do you actually mean their talk pages or 'their' talk pages?

FYI, my preferred pronouns are His Royal Highness, Lord Wilkinson W. Wikipedia featuring 'them' lipstick / The Electric Banana and 'their' Luggage.

Please be respectful. 109.43.178.124 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

One practical editing challenge for this article is when we have a sentence where "they" is used and the subject of the "they" is then unclear. For example, the page was recently edited by @Korny O'Near to read:

Brinton was raised in Perry, Iowa; their parents were Southern Baptist missionaries. Their parents disapproved of Sam's attraction to a male friend from school, and put Sam in conversion therapy, an experience they later described as "barbaric" and "painful" in a New York Times op-ed.

First, we can't use "Sam" to refer to an article subject per WP:SURNAME. Second, who does "they" refer to in the second sentence? As written, it is unclear whether it is Brinton or Brinton's parents, as either could be a possible antecedent for the pronoun. Who's writing the op-ed about the experience, Brinton (they) or Brinton's parents (they)? And replacing each "Sam" and "they" with "Brinton" would be unambiguous but jarring for the reader.

Previously, I had done my best to try to solve these problems with the wording:

Raised in Perry, Iowa, Brinton's parents were Southern Baptist missionaries who disapproved of their child's attraction to a male friend from school....As a youth Brinton was subjected to the pseudoscientific practice of conversion therapy, an experience they described as "barbaric" and "painful" in a New York Times op-ed.[1]

This is not perfect, but it's crystal clear on who wrote the NYT op-ed and we aren't breaking any MOS rules by calling subjects by their first names. BBQboffin (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

One problem with your wording is that it contains a dangling modifier, so it sounds like it's saying that Brinton's parents were raised in Perry, Iowa. I guess the best solution is to replace all the pronouns with either "Sam" or "Brinton". I see no problem with "Sam" - you see the use of the first name a lot in "Early life" sections, where it's used to distinguish the subject of the article from their siblings and parents. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

When we use the third-person pronoun of "they" to refer to Brinton, we need to write a bit more carefully than we do when using "he" or "she" in reference to other people, due to the ambiguity created. Oftentimes this will result in using the surname of the individual more than we would for others, but we can come up with creative constructions to reduce ambiguity that also don't require pronouns. A mix of this should be able to solve extant ambiguity issues in the text. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Add name Mongwau Mochni (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. TGHL ↗ 🍁 06:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to department of energy

Right now in the infobox it just links to gneeric ministry of energy, shouldn't it link to the U.S. department of energy? 2603:8081:2E00:D0E:B4DC:BA2A:7326:F2A2 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the infobox to link to the U.S. DOE. Thank you for your help. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

felony warrant

On 8 December 2022, a felony warrant for grand larceny was issued for Brinton after they were again accused of stealing luggage from the Harry Reid International Airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.65.36.28 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what the article says -- I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest? Endwise (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun confusion

Please, use generally accepted English grammar pronouns in this entry. They, them, their, etc are plural pronouns and cause great confusion . Thanks Jon 174.27.78.158 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. There are discussion areas elsewhere where rules and changes to MOS can be debated, but that place is not on individual articles or their talk pages. The good work of editors is to implement the existing rules/MOS on the individual articles. BBQboffin (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents: you'll see a diversity of styles on English Wikipedia. On UK-related pages, you'll see UK spellings, for example. I agree that this is a gross violation of the English language and would never honor someone's request to call them multiple people with a straight face. But just like "if you smelt it, you dealt it"...if you don't want to read singular they/them and the farcical perversion of the English language that it is, stop looking up trans people on online encylopedias. 2600:1012:B00D:79BA:1831:4AC6:6216:E951 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the article itself, "they/them" here is referring to a single person (the subject of the article) and not "multiple people". Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity for detailed guidelines. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have to go along with the chicanery personally, but I know what Wikipedia requires. That was the point I was trying to make to OP. 2600:1012:B002:6AD8:A8EF:DF9A:3673:D921 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In english "they/them" refers to multiple people. In wikispeak they have a different meaning. We go with wikispeak - Roxy the dog 17:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP

This is a clear cut WP:BLP and WP:OR violation, the source does not mention Sam Brinton Tristario (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It mentions "Sam" and the person photographed is clearly him. This is just splitting hairs. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming it's the same person is WP:OR - that isn't done on wikipedia. And WP:BLP is clear that any poorly sourced contentious content should be removed immediately - this is poorly sourced and contentious. It also says there should be regard for the subject's privacy - even if this is the same person, adding content from something that doesn't mention their name is also a clear violation of that. Furthermore, this also fails WP:BLPPUBLIC (if they're considered to be a public figure) and it also fails WP:NPF (if they're not considered one) Tristario (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How is this an "allegation" when the subject themself openly admits to it? We are not "assuming" here—it _is_ Sam Brinton. Do we discount visual sources without words too then?! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious it's the same person, people can look similar. And you didn't address the point about the privacy. And WP:BLPPUBLIC says allegation or incident, and WP:NPF says to only include content relevant to the person's notability. This is a very clear WP:BLP violation Tristario (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"I don't think it's obvious it's the same person, people can look similar" lmao, you really want to go with that kind of defence?! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WTVO reports that Brinton has been criticized for open advocacy of sexual fetishism and expressed enthusiasm for “puppy play,”, citing this archived news report in RPI's campus newspaper (and has noted it in reporting as old as from February of this year. National Review has also noted that Brinton has been fairly open about this item. Forbes also notes this as something that Brinton is criticized for, though attributes the criticism as being from Libs of Tik Tok, while South Florida Gay News (a news group we currently cite in this article already) also notes that this is something Brinton has been criticized for by conservatives (more generally). An Italian gay newsgroup also appears to have addressed criticism in this vein that was levied by conservatives around the time of Brinton's initial hiring for the position that they currently are on leave from.

As for whether Brinton takes the name as "Pup Stitch", I don't really know if that's the thing we include based upon sourcing. Brinton appears to be a high profile individual in this advocacy role, having granted an interview with a large news organization and giving public lectures on the topic; applying the rules of a low-profile person in this context doesn't seem to make sense. I don't think that the fact that they have a puppy kink is a libel issue (given the reporting from a bunch of sources confirms this is indeed about this Sam Brinton) but I do think that coverage of it in this article (if there's WP:WEIGHT, which I'm not quite sure of) might want to be a bit less sensational/focused on the pup names (one of which is taken by a person who is almost certainly not notable) than was the case in the phrasing that was removed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If something about this has been reported by multiple reliable sources (per WP:BLPPUBLIC) then it could be conservatively included in the article (in a non sensationalist manner). I can't tell how good a source WTVO is, WP:RSSM also applies for the student newspaper, and WP:NATIONALREVIEW isn't a great source. It looks like the sourcing might be good enough to say they've been criticized by conservatives for something along these lines. But this is the kind of thing - possibly privacy violating and contentious, and sensationalist - that great care should be taken with in a WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce & Red-tailed hawk I’ve added it back in after Tristario deleted it again. I find it sad that anyone can argue seriously that there is a BLP issue where someone is clearly pictured as doing what is a described in the article, is named therein, and when this is referred to in other RS’s. It is very, very obvious that there is no BLP issue over the inclusion of this material. Which I’m proud to say I edited in in the first place and re-introduced two days ago. ;) Boscaswell talk 03:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

And I just reverted it. I agree with @Tristario that with a BLP we want to use "great care", especially with something so salacious and controversial as this. If NYT and WaPo and BBC are all saying it, definitely include. Or if there's one or two perennial sources, maybe OK. But Metro Weekly showing a photo of someone named "Sam" who resembles the article subject doesn't pass BLP muster. BBQboffin (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with BBQboffin. That material should not be in here. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

BBQboffin as you know very well, WaPo and the NYT and the BBC are never, ever going to report this, they haven’t even reported his being charged with theft and the arrest warrant out for him, because Brinton is the poster-child for the non-binary lobby. There’s not even a cat in hell's chance that any of them would publish anything that puts Brinton in a bad light. Of course, I can’t imagine that that argument is why this frankly ridivulous dispute is taking place. I mean, the picture is quite obviously Brinton, only the most pedantic would argue that there’s a possibility of it not being Brinton, the name Sam is associated with the picture in the article, it describes a gay man who is involved with fetish sexual activities. Which, basically, is Brinton. Boscaswell talk 05:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think the concern is not that this isn't verifiable, but rather that the coverage doesn't constitute due weight in the article. Even if the picture is quite obviously Brinton, we generally don't include names of people's fursonas unless those names are for some reason significant... which they don't appear to be. Something might be warranted about their advocacy for acceptance of kink, but I think that phrasing should probably be focused on that advocacy rather than the particular relationship that Brinton's fursona had with a non-notable person's fursona.

Also, @BBQboffin:, with respect to your edit summary here, I hope you are counting me as among the people who don't want to include the "Pup stitch" name. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I was counting Kingoflettuce and Boscaswell as Aye and Tristario as I as No. That was the "2-2" I meant. You Red-tailed hawk I considered an abstention as your position is nuanced. If I'm not mistaken, you support adding: They told Metro Weekly that they are an animal roleplay enthusiast but not the addition of the "Pup Stitch" and "Pup Nubi" language. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BBQboffin (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the fence as to whether that we should include that they are an animal roleplay enthusiast, yes. I don't think it's prohibited in this circumstance by BLP (they seem to have been high-profile in this context), but I'm more wary from a due weight perspective. If the personal life section was longer I'd be more apt to include it, but it feels inappropriate from a WP:BALASP perspective to have half of their personal life section be about their puppy kink. If we cover it in some form, I don't think that we would have to resort to citing a single piece in Metro Weekly; the MyStateline source would make attribution solely to Metro Weekly a bit odd. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: I am here per your summons, though admittedly this topic is miles outside of my editing area or interest (perhaps that's why I was asked?). I agree with @Drmies: and BBQboffin -- the editors aren't being "pedantic" as you stated. Based on that source alone, I do not believe that we have enough to move the needle outside of original research territory (what you proposed on my talk page is, by definition, WP:SYNTH/OR), particularly around the nicknames; if no source properly named them fully then inclusion on superficial likeness alone is out of line. I would caution against re-adding this at this time (edit warring, WP:BLP WP:ACDS etc. apply) and would suggest that wilder consultation be sought -- perhaps an RfC. Going the RfC route could also resolve any weight concerns. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor thank you for your guidance. It might be that Brinton's predilections will feature in another RS, in which case I’d argue strongly that it is notable. The thing about Sam Brinton is that being such a public figure, anything that’s unusual which happens with them is news, and further, it’s notable. That can’t be helped. Brinton is certain to be in the headlines again in a week, when the court activity (appearance?) takes place.

Whether the animal roleplay stuff ends up in the personal section or elsewhere is by the by. Red-tailed hawk sorry, but I don’t hold with the argument that because there’s not much else in the personal section, it can’t go there. That seems a little bit absurd - surely, something is either notable, and therefore it goes in, or it isn’t. Right? All the best. Boscaswell talk 08:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking into the links which Red-tailed hawk kindly included, I came across this one. It mentions Sam Brinton "the nuclear policy expert" and includes these words: "He also expanded on his experiences with pup play". (Not my "he" or "his".) It’s an interesting piece, to say the least. Can we now please agree that the inclusion of something around this can go ahead? There can’t be any possibility of mistaken identity over this anymore, can there? Tristario ? BBQboffin ? Thanks. Boscaswell talk 08:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Another mainstream newspaper, Daily Mail [2] claimed that They have spoken openly about enjoying 'pup play' where they 'handle' their partner 'Nubi' and Brinton is not shy online about their sexual proclivities. In 2016, they took part in a Metro Weekly article about enjoying the genre of sexual fetish known as pup play, where they talked about 'handling' their 'pup' Nubi and why they feel judged by people who assume they like to have sex with animals.

If you are concerned about NPOV and neutrality, we can play it safe by writing as "Several newspapers and news channel claimed that Sam Brinton took part in..." or "Allegations of animal roleplay". Described it as some sources claimed it, we don't claimed it as truth. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Inuyasha2021 unfortunately The Daily Mail is not considered to be a Reliable Source. (I think it is, too, far more reliable in fact than such avowedly biased outlets as CNN, but it is Wikipedia policy that it’s not an RS.) Boscaswell talk 08:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if that is "convention", but BBQ did say "Or if there's one or two perennial sources, maybe OK." KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 11:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This 2017 article from The Rensselaer Polytechnic is a good find - there are indeed problems with the other sources found, but this source seems good enough by itself: not just to establish that Brinton enjoys "pup play", but to establish the notability of this information, since Brinton has given university lectures on the subject. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. For a BLP the stakes are higher, and the sourcing should reflect that. We're not going to use the Daily Mail and a student newspaper to smear a government official. User:Boscaswell is here claiming things like the subject is a "poster-child for the non-binary lobby" and therefore reliable news sources will not publish on it--in other words, there is a nationwide conspiracy and trusted sources shouldn't be trusted--including "such avowedly biased outlets as CNN". I don't know if the user has been warned of discretionary sanctions for BLPs and for AP2; User:TheSandDoctor, I really do not want this editor anywhere near BLPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am in agreement with you and have warned them about DS surrounding BLPs (they were notified in May about AP2). I did not mince words in my response on my talk page either, warning that this content should not be re-added (with merely a tabloid and without additional consensus). What I did accidentally miss explicitly mentioning though was WP:RS/WP:RSP. I am definitely concerned with Boscaswell's hints at conspiracy and that the Daily Mail is more reliable than actual RS. The fact that they have this metric backwards concerns me in terms of capability to edit constructively (in general, but particularly around BLPs). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record here, I have made an addendum correcting my oversight late last night. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We generally don't give preference to the sources listed on RSP as if they are special or particularly weighty; the point of that is to list sources which are frequently talked about/disputed. RSP-greenlit sources like IGN or Kommersant presumed are more weighty or important than Australia's ABC News or Canada's CBC News. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: That is where WP:NEWSORG would come in. RSP is just a good jumping off point and lists a good chunk of the most common non-RS and otherwise disputed sources that have been discussed etc. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My point exactly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning more towards leaving it out (for now). The sources on the matter aren't great. The Telegraph did report that Brinton "taught classes called "Kink 101" in which kneeling men wore leather dog masks" but I couldn't find any other sources that reported on this matter so there's a poor case for DUE weight. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Addendum for Sam Brinton: Brinton is currently a fugitive from justice named in an arrest warrant out of Las Vegas, NV. 50.79.191.150 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to a reliable source for that? Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Past Tense

He's no longer a Nuclear Activist but a suspect of several larcenies. Can this page either get updated or unlocked? Paceinator (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This person is described as a American nuclear engineer and LGBTQ activist. Their legal problems do not change that. Cullen328 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like they aren't going to be able to work on nuclear stuff again. If sources say "former", it should be fixed. 2600:1012:B055:2E17:F15B:5524:7B95:3CB0 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

They're still as qualified a nuclear engineer as they were two months ago, so I don't see the problem with it. And who knows what their future job prospects are going to be; it's not our place to speculate. Endwise (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Full dob

Hey, @Kingoflettuce! We can't use the full dob by cobbling together two different sources. We could use it if they'd said "I'm 33 today" or whatever, but we can't cobble together a full dob we've pieced together. It's a blp privacy issue, per WP:DOB. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

As I alluded to in my edit summary, what do we do then? "1987" is the extrapolation based on the reported age in multiple RS (so it's not like their age is a secret...), while Sam personally gives "September 11" as the date. Why do we go with 1987 and not a self-reported September 11?! Don't even give "1987" then, and just report the birthdate as "unknown". Otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. "BLP privacy issue" is hyperbole, IMO. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We can use a template that calculate that if someone was a certain age on a certain date, they are 36/37 now or whatever. I can never remember what that template is. It's reasonable to believe they were born in 1987, so we calculate from year of birth. Unless someone wants to go dig up the other template and use the article to fill it in with the date they were 35 or whatever that article said. I can't get to it, it's behind a paywall even on WP Library. Valereee (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If anything, "September 11" wouldn't be the privacy issue, since it's explicitly mentioned in numerous tweets (search for yourself @sbrinton) e.g. "Hey there! I’m Sam. Just had my birthday on 9/11. Definitely one of those activisty bisexuals.", "On Sept 11 I'll celebrate my birthday. Help me raise $1000 for LGBTQ youth as a way to make this year AMAZING", but here we are suggesting that somehow the day and month are more sensitive than the year, when it fact it was the year that's never been revealed in the tweets (tho the AGE comes out all the time in the news, so....). Frankly a bizarre invocation of BLP guidelines, if you ask me. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The privacy issue is the full dob, which can be used to dox someone. We just don't include it unless we have multiple RS reporting it (which is true for many athletes) or a very clear self-source, and birthday is trivia, we wouldn't include it if that's all we have. We can exclude altogether, but I think it's valuable nondubious info, so I think it's okay to include. I don't feel strongly about it, though, we could totally just leave it out altogether. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how strained the logic is. What exactly is so secret here?

1) They explicitly state on Twitter, (paraphrasing) "SEPTEMBER 11 IS MY BIRTHDAY" (multiple times)

2) News gives their AGE

3) Anybody who can count can put two and two together (you make it sound like they'll only figure out the full birthdate thanks to Wikipedia)

4) The clincher: their DOB is in the court records that are linked in news articles that probably get more clicks than this page.

I have removed 1987 altogether given how bizarre it is to give a "reasonable" birthyear that was never mentioned in the tweets, while leaving out the day/month that has been referenced multiple times by the subject themselves. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing it altogether is fine. I understand that is seems odd. I try to compromise the needs of the reader (to have a BLP's approximate age, which is of value) with the needs of the article subject, who has a right to privacy. You can take it up at BLPN, though, if you think this isn't a correct interpretation. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Found the template, inserted it in infobox to approximate age. Valereee (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion happening at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Date_of_birth. Valereee (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Due

I've expanded the section on the allegations. I've tried not to get into undue coverage; This person was notable for such a short period before these allegations arose that I kind of feel like it's a pretty important part of the article. Valereee (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

American English

The article is a BLP about a person born in the U.S., and whose activities have been primarily, maybe exclusively, in the U.S. I am going to edit the article so it is in American English. At present, there is mixed British and American usage. I will also add any wikilinks and copyedits, if needed.-- FeralOink (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Departure from position

Article states Brinton “left” the agency. This implies it was voluntary or of Brinton’s decision to leave. Multiple news sources state that Brinton was fired. Fired or variant “terminated from employment” should be used. 2603:9001:9200:5E96:75E3:B112:7B9E:78F4 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to explain the reason for Brinton's departure from DOE (resigned, fired, voluntary departure, or something else). With a biography of a living person we have the additional policy that we need multiple reliable sources. If you post links here to such sources, I or another editor can then update the article. BBQboffin (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

San Brinton did not “left” the Nuclear Department. Sam Brinton was “FIRED” after a string of thefts.

This request needs to be edited to reflect the truth and more clarified reason for Brinton’s departure of the Nuclear Department. Leaving the department is not clarified enough to show his reason for leaving was due to being fired. 2600:1012:B101:F249:FC7B:FCE6:FD6E:8564 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We would need a reference to a reliable source for that. CNN reported that the Office of Nuclear Energy confirmed that Brinton no longer works there, but does not say whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Left" would seem to imply that it was Brinton's choice, no? Anyway, regarding sources, from a google search: The Independent said "fired", LGBTQ Nation said "reportedly fired", and NBC News and CNN stuck to the vaguer "no longer employed". I'm not sure if that's enough for us to say "fired", but at the very least we should use the vague "no longer employed" wording rather than leaning closer to the side of implying Brinton left by choice. Endwise (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Query.

I am reading a comment thread to a MANBC news show item on George Santos. One poster keeps insisting that Sam Brinton appeared in Congress (perhaps a Congressional hearing?) wearing female-style clothing. The poster seems to think that this is somehow awful.

1. Did this happen?
2. If so, did anyone take offense?
3. Is this Brinton's usual clothing style?

I find a number of sites whose names are quite unknown to me, that have images of Brinton in female-styled clothing. There is an image of them wearing female clothing in an office, presumably at the DOE. But none of the articles I looked at mention there being any particular style of dress worn to Congress. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Jimney Cricket, another typo sneaked by me. Make that: "...comment thread to a MSNBC news show item..." Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The January 2016 Des Moines Register article[3] leads off describing Brinton as "hard to miss walking the halls of Congress in stilettos, talking about what the nation should do with its nuclear waste", but that seems in reference to their lobbying of House representatives about nuclear engineering issues. It's possible Brinton testified at a Congressional hearing, and if you can link to a video or transcript of that, it would be a helpful addition to the page. BBQboffin (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

On 20th February 2023, a Tanzanian fashion designer, Asya Khamsin based in Houston Texas posted on Twitter (https://twitter.com/asyakhamsin1/status/1627541483245936642?s=46&t=OB4BGsvRDSnNQdNDMvon8w) claiming that she had seen Brinton wearing her custome made outfits which were in the lost bag in 2018. She posted evidence of multiple outfits with striking similarity to some of Brinton’s dresses which she won at some occasions. 41.221.53.62 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Without a proper source this is useless. --Pokelova (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Direct sources aren't proper cites? 2601:588:8400:4A20:8896:2336:7D7D:85CC (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No, "direct sources", in this case Twitter, is a primary source, wikipedia uses secondary sources. See WP:RS and WP:RSPTWITTER. If the material is picked up by a reliable source (Fox News would not be considered reliable because it is a reiteration of what the designer sent to Fox News and per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). If there is a conviction and that is picked up by an independent, high-quality secondary source, then the content might be added if consensus is reached. In the meantime, patience. Netherzone (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There are several articles from mainstream sources, and even those on the WP:Perennial_sources list like this one from her Idenpendent. Another article here from the Daily Dot. And here in MSN.com. And those are just a couple. The Independent alone is enough. Sewnew (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

But isn't it a BLP Violation WP:BLPVIO if there has not been a hearing or a conviction, just an accusation? I'm not saying that they did not do it (steal the luggage), but that we need to be mindful of BLP VIOs, and that a living person is involved. First, do no harm. So even with reliable sources (thank you for finding those) I am not sure it's a good idea to add the most recent theft accusation. Netherzone (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we could probably state that the woman has said she recognized clothes Brinton was photographed wearing as her own unique designs which had been lost while travelling through Washington based on those RS picking the story up. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Until there’s evidence of the use of pronouns of one’s liking being widely accepted, which there isn’t, can we refrain from using whichever pronouns these individuals refer to themselves to, and use regular and plain English in these articles?

Unless I missed the memo, they indicate the plural and makes 0 sense for a single individual, who on top is a biological male, whether he agrees with it or not.

Thank you for considering making articles easy to understand and readable for the majority of people. 190.219.94.72 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. There are discussion areas elsewhere where rules and changes to the Manual of Style (MOS) can be debated, but that place is not on individual articles or their talk pages. The good work of editors is to implement the existing Wikipedia rules/MOS on the individual articles. BBQboffin (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A a non-native English speaker, I found the they (with plural verbs!) very confusing. I thought that he was one of a pair of twins and kept looking for the name(s) of the other children. Regardless of language politics, Wikipedia articles should aim to be clear rather than confusing. 196.15.192.209 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is an absolute mess indeed. Complete butchery of any linguistic logic. 2A02:1210:4A30:EA00:89F2:E568:1C3B:B446 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There's an explanation in the final sentence of the lead that explains they use singular they pronouns and includes a link to Singular they. I'm sorry it's confusing, Wikipedia tries to avoid that as much as possible, but the community has decided that misgendering someone is a bigger problem than occasional confusion. There is information at MOS:GENDERID. Valereee (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be saying: "Foreigners have to suck it up." Which smacks of implied racism, to me. 84.65.31.232 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

…what? Quite literally, you are the only one who has said that. To repeat, the top of the entry already spells out that the use of singular they and links to Wikipedia’s page explaining that. For anyone who doesn’t understand, irrespective of background. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that it's more, "Yes, in enwiki, we use what sources are saying. They/them pronouns be confusing to people who aren't familiar with their usage in English, but that should only be true the first time they come across them." Not sure how it's got a racial aspect, most English-speaking countries have plenty of persons of color who use they/them pronouns. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Grammatical error. The introduction says “they served”, plural. It should be “he” served, singular. From Dictionary.com: 🍎 Elementary Level They; - pronoun, possessive their or theirs,objective them. nominative PLURAL of he, she, and it1: 2600:4040:9941:6F00:7D9E:5000:18F4:F817 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the lead section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

transphobic article titles?

Hey, @Yeagvr, why do you see these as transphobic? One of them's from The Advocate (LGBT magazine). Valereee (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

72.66.7.101 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please update work history. Brinton is no longer employed with WH administration. Also, please include alleged charges.

•  Not done. All of the above is in the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

edit request

Please update the section regarding "Theft Allegations". Sam has been prosecuted and found guilty of theft, these are no longer allegations but fact. 5.66.20.44 (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, IP! If you know of a source stating this, we can add it. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, are you talking about the Las Vegas charges? That's already in the article. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Arrest date

Please add and update his arrest history yesterday (5/17) as a Fugitive from Justice by Montgomery County, Maryland Police. 2603:8000:4E42:77B0:1921:1124:8138:1D76 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for that. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This moved into reliable sourcing, updated. Valereee (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

Change “Theft Allegations” to “Criminal History” or incidents (or some other, more accurate header).

Mr. Brinton has plead no contest in Las Vegas and entered a diversion program in Minnesota. These theft incidents are no longer allegations. To describe them as such is misleading. 2600:8800:1D02:2A00:953:86B5:411:FDA9 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Updated; when making edit requests, it's helpful if you'll provide a source. I found one, but that's not actually required of those responding to an edit request that doesn't include one. Valereee (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)