User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2023/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jess Wade image
Er ... in this edit you wrote WP:BLPIMAGE, implying that you changed it in respect of the subject, but did you actually ask her which image she prefers? Because in Talk:Jess_Wade/Archive_1#Article_image(s) she preferred that 2017 image to a different one. --GRuban (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can we talk about article content issues on the article talk page? I am about to be off-wiki, but I did review the previous article talk discussion, i.e. the subject stating "I hate this new photo" about a 2019 image, and I can discuss the BLP policy issues from my view as they relate to depicting a British physicist in the Blackett Laboratory at Imperial College London, specialising in Raman spectroscopy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's kinda weird to talk about "avoiding presumptions" only to later confirm the presumption was accurate, FYI. Also please brush up on WP:3RRBLP and maybe give the content at the essay WP:CRYBLP some thought. This was an exceptionally (comically, even) weak BLP claim. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- VQuakr, what presumption are you talking about? I always appreciate advice, but some clarity about the first part of your comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- A better question might be, what presumption are you talking about? It was a direct quote of you complete with diff. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article talk discussion was opened with a characterization of the reason for the change of image as "presumably because a respected scientist should not be seen to have a sense of humor." So I asked you if that was what you were coming to my talk page to call 'kinda weird' that I 'later confirm[ed] the presumption was accurate,' and tell me to 'brush up' on WP:3RRBLP even though I did not revert your reversion, suggest I give WP:CRYBLP some thought (which includes, fwiw, "Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor's view before responding with a link here"), and refer to my BLP concerns "exceptionally (comically, even) weak" when the discussion has hardly had a chance to develop. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I stand by that characterization of the BLP concern. The this isn't a mugshot, it isn't even an unflattering candid image. It's a picture that the subject posed for voluntarily. We also have the quite unusual situation here where the subject actually weighed in on a discussion about the image selection, expressed dislike for an adjacent image, and did not express reservations about this image. We might very well reach a new consensus that a different image is preferred and that's fine, but the argument that this image must be removed right now over a previous talk page consensus and over other editors' objections because of BLP, is frivolous. That's the reason I'm giving you this "please do better"-toned feedback here. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I realize this may sound kinda weird, and maybe exceptionally, or even comically weak, but one of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is how we typically operate by consensus and through collaborative discussion, and we can consider the principles of the encyclopedia, and have good-faith differences in opinions about policy, guidelines, and content. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I stand by that characterization of the BLP concern. The this isn't a mugshot, it isn't even an unflattering candid image. It's a picture that the subject posed for voluntarily. We also have the quite unusual situation here where the subject actually weighed in on a discussion about the image selection, expressed dislike for an adjacent image, and did not express reservations about this image. We might very well reach a new consensus that a different image is preferred and that's fine, but the argument that this image must be removed right now over a previous talk page consensus and over other editors' objections because of BLP, is frivolous. That's the reason I'm giving you this "please do better"-toned feedback here. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article talk discussion was opened with a characterization of the reason for the change of image as "presumably because a respected scientist should not be seen to have a sense of humor." So I asked you if that was what you were coming to my talk page to call 'kinda weird' that I 'later confirm[ed] the presumption was accurate,' and tell me to 'brush up' on WP:3RRBLP even though I did not revert your reversion, suggest I give WP:CRYBLP some thought (which includes, fwiw, "Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor's view before responding with a link here"), and refer to my BLP concerns "exceptionally (comically, even) weak" when the discussion has hardly had a chance to develop. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- A better question might be, what presumption are you talking about? It was a direct quote of you complete with diff. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- VQuakr, what presumption are you talking about? I always appreciate advice, but some clarity about the first part of your comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
AfD:Elizabeth, Lady Thurles
Dear Beccaynr Thank you very much for your contribution to the AfD on Elizabeth, Lady Thurles. I started this AfD because I wanted to improve the article and was afraid of wasting my time on a subject that was not notable. This is my first AfD and I do not have a good understanding of how it works. I see now that if the article happens to be a biography of a woman then I have the entire wolfpack from WikiProject Women defending it. You are right to invoke WP:NEXIST: I must try harder to find sources. You at least try to help me.
You found in "Writings on Ireland" (1996) p. 70, which is available in Internet Archive, that the book "Thurles, the Cathedral Town", contains an essay by James Condon, entitled "Elizabeth, Lady Thurles, her acestory and her role in the Rebellionof 1641". This is quite an feat. The book "Thurles, the Cathedral Town" is in Google Books. Unluckily, Google Books make it available neither for Preview nor for Snippet view. Have you read it? Do you own a copy? I looked on the website of Geography Books, which published it but could not find it. I live in Northern Ireland. Libraries NI does not have it. With many thanks for your efforts and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Johannes Schade, and thank you for bringing this article up for discussion - when I reviewed the article edit history, I had a general sense this was created when this type of article was a well-accepted and standard practice, and I was curious if more recent and/or accessible scholarship might surface more depth about her, so I searched deep in the GBooks and GScholar links with a particular focus. I unfortunately do not have access to the sources I identified, but there are a few options:
- a resource request could be made at Wikiproject Resource Exchange for the specific pages of the Thurles, the Cathedral Town book (and I think the page from the Women and war book may also be helpful, as well as relevant pages from the JSTOR source about her family)
- a request for assistance at the talk page of Wikiproject Women's History
- a request for assistance at the talk page of Wikiproject Ireland
- I have not had any luck with a search of Wikipedia Library databases I have access to, but I do not have much familiarity with this historical era, so I kept feeling as if I was not conducting effective searches. However, I think asking relevant Wikiprojects for help is a reasonable next step for obtaining access to sources and potentially garnering more interest in developing the article. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Beccynr, Thank you again. I will follow your suggestions. I learned a couple of things from you. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russell J. Rickford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jewish Journal.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Russell J. Rickford
Beccaynr, thanks for rewriting the coverage of the recent incident over at Russell J. Rickford. I had it on my list, but only get so much Wikipedia time. (And what was there was badly sourced, but not otherwise very obnoxious; the incident likely does belong there: more coverage, potential effect on career, etc.) What is there now a little over-long now to my taste (you know that I prefer a briefer summary for negative incidents in a BLP), but well-sourced and establishes notability of the incident. Thanks. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers, Russ Woodroofe, and it also reads a bit too long to me, particularly due to my tendency to use quotes when initially drafting, but further editing will help with condensing the content. Beccaynr (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)