User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2018/Feb

In case you are unaware...
...please see here. While I do not agree entirely with Winklvi's statement at the end, he is correct in the issue is escalating and the elephant is being ignored. A recently closed AE discussion dealing with one of their 'sanctions' also being one of the latest examples of obviously poor choices by the subject. Unless Arbcom as a group do something pro-actively, you are looking at either a very public AN filing (which as usual will turn into a mess) which will end up at Arbcom, or a public Arbcom filing. Just to make it clear: I do not mean that as a threat of future action by me personally, I mean that based on previous editors who exhibit an escalating series of erratic and poor decisions that's where it will end up. Literally no-one wants this, and it will certainly not be good for the editor concerned. The relevant part of ARBPOL is section 4 of scope - "4.To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017. —GoldRingChip 12:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't have a strong view either way on this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

BDP
Watching your talk on BLP, what kind of flac do you know about or deal with regarding Wikipedia biographies of dead people, in terms which are close or similar to biographies of living people issues, and how have things developed over the last few years? -Inowen (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, which is a good one. I'll be traveling with limited online time and access through the weekend, so I'll share my thoughts with you early next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No rush. I also want to get yours, and others, opinion on this, where it seems like system creep from "Her Majesty's" government into ours. Using or not using British government jargon isn't just a matter of "style," and its informal from an specific governments point of view. In my humble opinion, it doesn't have a place here. I've left a comment on Talk:Her Majesty's Government (term). -Inowen (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion,, the phrase "her majesty's government" is appropriate as part of a properly cited quotation, but inappropriate if used in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that using a group's chosen nomenclature can in some situations be obsequious, and cause an implicit neutral point of view violation. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After some sleuthing: the page Government of the United Kingdom was created in October 2009, while Her Majesty's Government (term) (previously at Her Majesty's Government) was created in 2005. Many old links, such as the one on Diet Coke (added in 2008) linked there due to that being the page on the UK government at that time.  As the links still work and are often piped, there's been no action to replace them. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 08:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are some thoughts on your BLP/BDP question, with apologies for the delay. (I don't really have any opinion on the "Her Majesty's Government" wording.) I wasn't editing yet when the BLP policy was being developed circa 2005, and you might also want to get some background from the editors who played a role in developing the policy. SlimVirgin is one who I believe helped write the first BLP policy and is still actively editing.

As you know, the original concern behind the BLP policy was that false and unverified information about living people could damage their lives, with the Seigenthaler affair being the original example. Therefore, the prime directive of BLP was originally that no negative information about a living person could be included in an article with a direct citation to a reliable source. That was a more significant change to the prevailing editing culture than one might think, because Wikipedia's overall standards for sourcing were much lower in 2005 than they are today. Today we expect to see some reliable sources cited as the basis for any article, although of course not a specific source for each individual statement in it. Back in 2005 that expectation was not as developed. I don't mean to overstate things: if someone disputed a statement in an article and a source wasn't provided for it, it would come out. But people weren't looking for unsourced statements the way they sometimes do today.

Over time, the realization grew that BLP subjects could be harmed not just by the inclusion of maliciously defamatory statements, but also by giving undue weight to minor negative aspects of their lives, to publicizing things that they did not want to see publicized and there was no encyclopedic need to publicize, and so forth. The community's thinking on these issues developed circa 2006 and 2007 (I can point to some essays I wrote at the time if they'd be of interest, though you may have already seen them). Some of these issues came to a head in Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; reading through the pages for that case will give you an excellent sense of the points of view being articulated at the time.

So ... in 2005-2006, the prevailing policy was "no unsourced negative information in biographies of living persons, but no strongly enforced requirements for sourcing in other articles." However, it soon occurred to someone&mdash;I don't recall the first instance in which this actually came up, and I'd be interested to know&mdash;to ask, what happens when a BLP subject dies? By the letter of policy, an editor could theoretically have said to himself or herself, "this person just died, so now I can add lots of unsourced, negative information to his or her biography." Obviously that wasn't the intent and wasn't desired, and so the BLP policy was extended to include the recently deceased, for some debatable length of how long constitutes "recently." This point, too, came up when the arbitrators voted on Badlydrawnjeff, and was the subject of a sharp division at the time (see here and here). Today I do not think the principle is controversial, partly because the sourcing expectations have increased even for non-BLP articles, and partly due to a decade's experience with it.

I hope this is the sort of information you were looking for, but please let me know if you have another question, and I expect that some others who watch this page will have thoughts also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP
I've responded to Nightscream's now-redacted request for help [] and dealt with the problem. He included a little too much information in his request. The editor he was dealing with was on some kind of mission to turn a BLP into a forum for salacious disparagement, sourced to court documents and TMZ. Article semi-protected, user blocked, talkpage access revoked, and revisions deleted.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nightscream, for raising this and Acroterion, for dealing with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Four-and-a-half years after your question
In September 2013 at Talk:Alfred Gordon Clark remained unanswered, the main header may be, hopefully, restored to its original form. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Encyclopedia available for a New York area Wikipedian
I am in the process of downsizing my apartment and have to dispose of some things that I love but simply do not have room for any longer. One of these is a complete set of the Encyclopedia Brittanica from the mid-1990s. It comprises about 30 volumes and is also accompanied by a three-volume set containing a facsimile reprint of an early edition from the 1700s.

I would like to give this set to a Wikipedian, preferably one who will make some use of it in his or her article-writing. There will be no cost, but the recipient will have to come to my building in midtown Manhattan to pick up the volumes and have a means of taking them away.

If anyone is interested, please e-mail me using the "E-mail this user" feature.

(Please, no philosophical "paper vs. electronic encyclopedias" discussion in this thread.)

Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)