Talk:Brian Sims

Untitled

Article has been improved. Previous comments withdrawn.

Adambondy (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brian Sims. 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/20111006151111/http://epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Family+Portrait-+Brian+Sims%20&id=3177389-Family+Portrait-+Brian+Sims to http://epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Family+Portrait-+Brian+Sims%20&id=3177389-Family+Portrait-+Brian+Sims
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006064952/http://epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Sims+to+challenge+Babette+Josephs+in+182nd+Dist-%20&id=15424897 to http://epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Sims+to+challenge+Babette+Josephs+in+182nd+Dist-%20&id=15424897

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} 03:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Privilege/oppression quote

I am looking for the source of the widely repeated quotation, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

I've found multiple unreliable sources attributing it to Brian Sims, for example this one: http://bialogue-group.tumblr.com/tagged/Quotes

I've also found unreliable sources saying it's older than his use of it, for example a comment on this blog post: https://theboeskool.com/2016/03/05/when-youre-accustomed-to-privilege-equality-feels-like-oppression/

If anyone can find a credible source confirming that it originates with him, I think it's noteworthy enough to appear in his Wikipedia article, and/or in WikiQuote.

Thoughts? Thanks.

Pzriddle (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Searching on Google for "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" (with the quotation marks) and as an advanced search with latest date of "1999" gives two hits, where the web page dates are 3/15/96 and 2/22/99. I hope that helps. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Sims. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012154331/http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2011/08/24/moment-43-brian-sims-tells-his-story-nine-years-later/ to http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2011/08/24/moment-43-brian-sims-tells-his-story-nine-years-later/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sims4pa.com/Bio
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sims4pa.com/content/brian-sims-announces-candidacy-pennsylvania%E2%80%99s-182nd-house-district

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) 14:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The first elected, but not the first to serve

When Representative Sims was elected, there were no openly gay Pennsylvania legislators, but a sitting representative, Mike Fleck, cane out as gay before Sims took office. So he's the first-elected openly gay Pennsylvania legislator, but not the first openly gay Pennsylvania legislator. The article currently gets that wrong twice, both in the lead (which says, incorrectly, that "Sims is the first openly gay elected state legislator in Pennsylvania history.") and in the "Pennsylvania House of Representatives" section (which says that "Sims shares the designation of being its first openly gay member with Rep. Mike Fleck").

The situation is a little bit complicated, but not so complicated that there's any excuse for getting it so wrong. Does somebody want to fix this? TypoBoy (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

My comment above was wrong. The article is right. I understand this now that I have reread (and understood) the "Pennsylvania House of Representatives" section. TypoBoy (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

any mention of his attempt to dox pro-life girls?

As mentioned here, amid other sources. --2001:8003:4163:AD00:A01D:CD3C:20E6:1959 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives section. Ergo Sum 04:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's another source. --1.136.110.133 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You received a response that it was already included in the article when you made your first comment. The talk page is for concrete discussions on changes to the article, not to dump links without commentary or context. Please keep in mind this space is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. JesseRafe (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's more fitting for a separate section titled "Controversy" rather than tucked away under the "Activism" section. 67.4.86.65 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's 180° from how things are determined to be more fitting. Please read WP:CSECTION and the links on your talk page so you can make informed suggestions. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to attack good faith suggestions. On the contrary, it runs against the tradition of WP:GOODFAITH. JesseRafe is right that controversy sections are usually deprecated across Wikipedia. That being said, the subject should be given due weight and not editorialized and minimized. Ergo Sum 17:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's my opinion that these link-dumps were not good faith. I have restored more neutral phrasing to the paragraph. To me, excessive detail and Twitter play-by-plays is a symptom of WP:RECENTISM and is also covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Only the foundational aspects of the event should be covered. This is just a news blip and interest will fade away again in time as everything else does when it falls out of the newscycle. I think it is sufficiently covered with the woman's actions, Sims's response, the prior incident, and the further critiques of him and his response to that. Note, I never said "praying a rosary" was US-centric, I was suggesting it might be an ENGVAR because it does not sound like a syntactic construction anyone I've ever encountered speaking North American English use, as opposed to "with" or "on" a rosary, and it sounded like perhaps Commonwealth English where prepositions are sometimes dropped, and thus thought it might not apply here because the subject is American. JesseRafe (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

“Democratic” is INCORRECT

His party affiliation is not “democratic”. It is “Democrat” these are two completely unrelated words, and an attempt by media to NLP uneducated minds. Please change party affiliation to Democrat. Shaun2170 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The party is literally called the Democratic Party. "Democrat" is a nominalization from that term (a noun made from, in this case, an adjective). I changed the instance in the lede to a WL of the same, but further requests from you should be phrased less aggressively and perhaps a little less tinfoil-y to be taken more seriously. Thanks for your input. JesseRafe (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Video controversy section

As stated previously, WP:CSECTION still applies. As does the fact that dailycaller is listed at WP:DEPREC, it was re-instated after that was pointed out. My previous concerns about WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS are still of concern with the recent edits, moreover the egregiously POV description of the protestor in Wikipedia's voice. We cannot say "she was quietly praying" and leave it at that as the encyclopedia's telling of what happened. This is a known intimidation tactic that by itself may seem innocuous but in the context it is applied (outside a Planned Parenthood, outside of a voting precinct/voter registration drive, outside of a newly integrated public school, etc) must be described accurately. New and sweeping additions should be discussed on the talk page and BLP and NPOV concerns should be observed. JesseRafe (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Before I made my edits to the article here, I didn't read the talk page first. That's my mistake, and I apologize. I was unaware of WP:CSECTION before you pointed it out, so thank you. I was also unaware that the Daily Caller was a WP:DEPREC (and was only vaguely aware that DEPREC was a thing). Thank you again for pointing it out. This is all a bit outside of my usual editing area. To the content related points: I don't think this information belongs in the career section. Perhaps we should pull out the whole activist section from the career section? One of the sources said she was quietly praying, and I'm not sure I entirely agree that we can't say that she was in WP's voice. The sentence clearly describes the context in which she was praying. I also don't agree with your characterization of my edits as a "sweeping addition," but your recentism and BLP concerns are well noted. I have placed a trimmed down draft below. Why don't we edit it here until we have a consensus?

In May 2019, Sims posted an eight minute video of himself confronting a woman who was protesting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia by quietly praying the rosary. He encouraged his followers to dox her and protest outside her house. Sims also criticized her for being Catholic. He later admitted to being "aggressive" in his confrontation.

A few weeks prior, he posted a similar video in which he offered a $100 reward to anyone who could dox three teenage girls, aged 13 to 15, who were praying outside the same clinic. Facebook removed the video for violating their community standards around "coordinating harm." The mother of two of the girls filed a police report. Sims' has come under fierce criticism for the videos, including calls for his resignation and criminal investiations. Sims responded to calls for an apology or that he resign by calling critics bigoted, sexist, and misogynistic "Bible Bullies."

What do you think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your calm response. I may have over-reacted because a spate of users had been making aggrandizing versions of similar edits you made. I see where you are coming from about it not being a part of his career as a lege, but as there was already an activism section there, I see it appropriate there. I personally don't see this recent fixation with reporting what was a video or what was on social media as interesting in and of itself rather than the literal acts. We also can't continue to say things like "fierce" etc, and keep in mind this is not a newspaper.

In light of all of my previous concerns, as a kind of track changes, I'd suggest:

In May 2019, Sims posted an eight minute video of himself confronting (unnecessary) confronted a woman who was protesting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia by quietly (POV) praying (word choice) reciting the rosary. He encouraged his social media followers (not people literally following the two of them) to dox her and protest outside her house. Sims also criticized her for being Catholic. He later admitted to being "aggressive" in his confrontation.

A few weeks prior, he had posted a similar video in which he offered a $100 reward to anyone who could dox three teenage girls, aged 13 to 15, who were prayingprotesting outside the same clinic. Facebook removed the video for violating their community standards around "coordinating harm." (irrelevant and POV) The mother of two of the girls filed a police report. (implies guilt) Sims' has come under fierce (POV) criticism for the videos, including calls for his resignation and criminal investiations (implies guilt). Sims responded to calls for an apology or that he resign by calling critics bigoted, sexist, and misogynistic "Bible Bullies."

Thoughts on this (which does not differ much from the edits Clpo13 recently made)? Other things to note are being very careful discussing legal matters and unless one is actually subject to investigation, it's irrelevant that someone else wants them to be investigated. Also the term "praying the rosary" seems to be a contentious one and a new phrase, understood by everyone, should be used. It's foreign to me (frankly, it doesn't sound English) and others have changed it as well. "Reciting a rosary" or "praying with a rosary" seem to be more accessible terms to more readers. JesseRafe (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am glad we can work this out and encourage others to jump in as well. I am OK with many of your edits. I think we should keep that it was an eight minute video. It shows that this wasn't just a momentary encounter, but a prolonged one. You don't really "recite" the rosary as if it were the alphabet or the Gettysburg Address, you pray it. That said, as a compromise I am comfortable with "praying with a rosary. The source does also say that she was "quietly" praying with it, which I think is important context. This didn't devolve into a shouting match on the street, in which case it probably wouldn't have been big news. It made the news because a young man yelled for 8 minutes at an older woman who was trying to pray. One of the sources says he harassed her.

I also think the ages of the girls is important for contextual reasons. There's a difference between a man confronting a 19 year old woman and a 13 year old girl. The source says the girls were there “primarily there to pray.” It was outside of a PP facility, though, so obviously there was a political overtone. How about "prayerfully protesting" instead? I understand your reasoning behind removing the police report line, but I think that Facebook's removal of the video is relevant. I do see you POV concerns around "fierce criticism." I was just quoting the source there but let's cut it out. I don't think a call for an investigation implies that he is guilty of anything, but I also don't feel very strongly about it. As a gesture of good faith, let's cut it. So, now we are left with:

In May 2019, Sims posted an eight minute video of himself confronting a woman who was protesting outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Philadelphia by quietly praying with a rosary. He encouraged his social media followers to dox her and protest outside her house. Sims also criticized her for being Catholic. He later admitted to being "aggressive" in his confrontation.

A few weeks prior, he had posted a similar video in which he offered a $100 reward to anyone who could dox three teenage girls, aged 13 to 15, who were prayerfully protesting outside the same facility. Facebook removed the video for violating their community standards around "coordinating harm." Sims has come under criticism for the videos, including calls for his resignation. He responded to calls for an apology or that he resign by calling critics bigoted, sexist, and misogynistic "Bible Bullies."

Thanks for collaborating with me on this. Further thoughts? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you've been fairly active since I posted this most recent version, Jesse, including on the main page, but haven't offered any additional edits here. I assume that if you aren't 100% sold on this that we are at least pretty close, so I'm going to move it to main and additional tweaks can be made there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly I note the comments from Slugger O'Toole that "Before I made my edits to the article here, I didn't read the talk page first" and "This is all a bit outside of my usual editing area". No surprise really and this strongly reinforces the point that Slugger's motivation for coming to this article was solely to revert my edits as per WP:HOUNDING. There is an ongoing complaint on the ANI about this. Secondly I want to point out that Slugger is not the fount of all knowledge on Catholicism. They state "You don't really "recite" the rosary as if it were the alphabet or the Gettysburg Address, you pray it." This must be news to the Pope - for example in his 2002 letter on the Rosary called Rosarium Virginis Mariae John Paul II writes ''I myself have often encouraged the frequent recitation of the Rosary". There are many more examples. Yet despite this Slugger over-turned both my edits and those of JesseRafe for their preferred version. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Representative Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rep. Brian Sims.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

When Sims was in the news recently there were a number of editors, including myself, who tried to put information about the incidents into the article. Those edits were reverted for good reason. A consensus version was then worked out here on talk and moved to the main. I note here that Contaldo did not participate in that discussion although it is clear from his edits on an administrator's noticeboard that he was well aware of it.

Contaldo then came in and edited the consensus version by inserting additional details. He was reverted. JesseRafe then came in and made an additional tweak to the consensus version. I agreed with the edit and publically thanked him for it. Notably, though he edited the very same sentence that Contaldo did, Jesse did not reinsert the facts Contaldo wished to include. Contaldo then came in again and made the same edit. He was reverted again. Contaldo then came back for a third time and reinserted the same material. He did so against consensus and without coming to talk to try to build one. I remind editors that WP:BRD provides an alternative to edit warring. I am going to revert for the last time and encourage anyone who wants to include the material to build a consensus here first. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of well-referenced material by JesseRafe

@JesseRafe: Please state

1. Why you keep removing the well-referenced material I added.

2. Why you allege that this material "does not conform to our policies", as you claimed in your message to me.

2001:569:7FEA:C900:E40B:4D99:287B:AF38 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Note that JesseRafe has referred to me as a "bot" or "troll", violating WP:NOPA. 2001:569:7FEA:C900:E40B:4D99:287B:AF38 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I recommend removing, and entirely re-writing, this section. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&oldid=1051430136#JesseRafe's_disruptive_removal_of_well-referenced_material for details. Feel free to remove my message here together with the section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)