Talk:Daniel Bonevac

Appearance on MSNBC July 26 2017

On The Beat, stated his defense rational of Trump unconventional behavior and that Washington has not been normal since 1974. Wikipietime (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Title IX

Not sure what you mean by "weasely" David Eppstein. Bonevac says he disagrees with the Executive Orders (the "edicts") that were recently issued and doesn't want to comply with those orders. He doesn't say he disagrees with Title IX itself. The current version is misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

His detailed explanation of how he thinks that certain parts of Title IX are not really parts of Title IX are irrelevant excuses. He is not a judge and not in a position to make that judgement. He has stated that he is not complying with Title IX; we don't need to drag in his arguments about Biden to make that point. It has the appearance of trying to pretend that he is not doing what he is actually doing because Biden. By the same token, we also don't need to call his positions "racist, homophobic, and illogical" (as one earlier editor did) to state clearly what those positions are and not obfuscate them with epithets or political excuses. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't say he doesn't intend to follow Title IX. It provides a direct quote of what he said, which was that he won't follow the Biden orders on Title IX. Can you provide sourcing that he will not follow Title IX? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I see some sourcing that indicates he doesn't intend to comply with "title IX changes". See for example: [1] Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to elaborate on this passage, the important information to elaborate is what the changes are (prohibition against discrimination based on gender identity; requirement of accommodation for abortion-related absences). Telling people the name of the president during the time when the administration pushed the changes, without saying anything about what the changes are, is just grandstanding and finger-pointing, it is uninformative, and it is unencyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

AGF please, I'm trying to follow sources and be informative and correct what I saw as a misleading statement in the article. The edit you made is an improvement. But do you deny that the sources attribute the changes to the Biden Admin? Presumably not, so on what policy basis are you not wanting to include the info? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Because pointing fingers at opposing politicians and saying "he did it! it's all his fault! I'm not going to even tell you what he did but he did it so it must be bad!" is political rhetoric not encyclopedic information. Bonevac may have engaged in that but it doesn't mean we have to.

I think we can trust our readers to understand that federal regulatory action in 2024 involves the Biden administration without peppering random BLPs with "did you know that in 2024 the president of the US was Joseph Biden?". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So which policy? If it’s in the source that doesn’t guarantee inclusion if it’s undue. Are you claiming it’s undue? I can find more sources that include it I think. So I’m not seeing a policy based argument here.Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you a robot? Use some common sense. Are we trying to inform readers or are we trying to campaign against a no-longer-running presidential candidate. What useful information would this addition provide to any reader? The policy is WP:DUE. We should definitely discuss this incident but it should not overwhelm the article because it is not what Bonevac is notable for. So we need to limit the detail we provide on it to only the most informative detail. Telling people Biden's name is not an informative detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are the seven sources I can find on this: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Every single one of these sources explicitly says that Bonevac is challenging the new rule changes put in place by the Biden Administration. So the information is obviously DUE. And it provides context as to why this Trump supporter might be pursuing this challenge.

I tend to agree that there is too much text devoted to this issue in the article. I'd be glad to shorten it. How about this, which cuts the length by about half:

On May 15, 2024, Bonevac and another UT-Austin professor filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging new Title IX regulations issued by the Biden administration which prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and require accommodations for students seeking abortions. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are news stories about the lawsuit, aimed at readers of political news. They are not encyclopedic biographies of Bonevac. So it makes more sense for them both to play up the political aspects of the story and expand the related context of the story beyond Bonevac, in a way that does not make sense for an encyclopedia article about Bonevac.

Also, it is important to note that Bonevac not only filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations, but also personally promised to discriminate based on gender identity, to forbid accommodations for students seeking abortions, and (one assumes, so that he has the information to do those things) to pry into the sex lives of his students. The story is largely relevant because of his promised classroom behavior, not merely for his signature on a lawsuit. Your shortened version skips over all that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

These are the seven sources we are relying on to determine that the story should be included at all. All of them mention the Biden Admin. If political news is UNDUE then it's UNDUE. If we shouldn't have a section on his politics, then we shouldn't. But if we are going to include this, then we shouldn't pick and choose from the sources according to "common sense" which turns out to push a POV. And sure, I'm fine with including the details you mention since they're all in the sources too. I'm generally for following the sources! Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, we should work on including something about what he's actually notable for: his philosphical research. I'll try to work on that at some point, not today. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)