User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"Streisand effect" and "allegedly"

My use of "allegedly" was clumsy. She lost the law suit, yes. But the Wikipedia page says "[Streisand] attempted to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph". However in the autobiography, she claims that it was an individual she was suing, not the official site. This makes sense, as why would the official California State site put her name on the photo, which she claims was her only objection? Perhaps the individual sourced the photos from that official site and reposted them? The WP page implies she attempted to suppress an official record, whereas she claims she took action against an individual who posted (what was perhaps that same official) photo appending her name. My "alleged" was meant to cover that bit of "grey" only. Certainly the answer to this is not found by virtue solely of the legal result against her, as you suggest. My alleged really meant "rumours say she sued an official website" (with the rumours making it to an actual Wikipedia article!). It was meant as a neutral "alleged", since I couldn't find a definitive answer yet. Can you think of a better way to get that subtlety into the lede, since Streisand claims she sued an individual not a State body, and the generality of the legal finding in and of itslef doesn't go to this particular point? I agreed "allegedly" is not the right word: too legal. Walton22 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It comes down to Streisand's own view of the matter, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. It's ok to point out that she had a different view, but the view of the court was that the action that she took against Adelman and Pictopia was wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I was only referring to accuracy about WHO she was suing, not the finding itself. The article made an erroneous implication I think. I have now edited the lede to fix, I believe. Accept your revert of my "allegedly". Walton22 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Streisand's legal action against Adelman (who took the photo and posted it on his own website layer42.net) the action led to massive publicity that would never have happened if Streisand had done nothing about it. The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house. This is made clear in the court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The story that gave rise to the expresison "the Streisand effect" is clearly not a fiction. Her rebuttal just challenges some assumptions around the story, but doesn't annul the main thrust. As far as "The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house" she does claim in her book that her objection was that the photo was captioned with her name, and my edit reports that. Walton22 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But, if as you say, Adelman took the photo, then the reference in the lede of the WP article to "California Coastal Records Project's photograph" surely needs to be edited away? Walton22 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm worried about the wording at California Coastal Records Project, as it gives the impression that Streisand sued the project rather than Adelman. It is clear that Adelman took the photo for the project and it was intended to be used by them; it wasn't a personal project of his.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the lede of Streisand effect to make it clear Streisand sued Adelman, not the project. Maybe you can edit similarly at California Coastal Records Project. Walton22 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading through the court ruling. Adelman is described as the creator of the California Coastal Records Project; the project was not directly linked to the government in California as is sometimes wrongly stated. It also says "Nothing on the California Coastal Records Project website lists the address of the plaintiff's residence or the longitude and latitude of specific buildings on her property... Image 3850 carries a label or "tag", but only as it is displayed on the California Coastal Records Project website: "Streisand Estate, Malibu". Once a person has gained access to the California Coastal Records Project site, it is possible to search by that tag to reach a screen which displays image 3850. A general Internet search for the tag, using a search engine such as Google or Yahoo, will not direct a searcher to the image posted on the defendants' site." There are various conclusions from this:

• The website did not say that the photograph was of Barbra Streisand's house or give its address. It would only have been accessible to someone who was looking at the California Coastal Records Project website, and would not have shown up in a web search.
• Barbra Streisand was right that the image tag said "Streisand Estate, Malibu" although it did not name her personally.
• The image was not easy to find on the Internet in late 2002/early 2003, and it was largely Barbra Streisand's legal action that drew public attention to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Very interesting. I saw your edit to California Coastal Records Project. You seem to be wanting to do NPOV. I do too. Walton22 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notice you have rewritten my copy. Reads well to me, and if you are (probably) a more experienced editor I assume it is a better fit for WP? So I can learn, please let me know if you have time what the issues were with what I wrote? I was reluctant to direct quote too much as I thought this might be an issue, and thought rather one should parphrase too, but I notice you quote a lot.Walton22 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to edit the text down to the key point that Barbra Streisand makes in the book, which is that she says that she wanted the lawyer to remove the name tag from the website, not the photo itself. There is quite a lot of quotation from Streisand in her own words, because she says in her book that Wikipedia doesn't give the facts. This is because prior to the book (and yesterday for me) it was a big surprise to learn that she had looked at the Wikipedia article and disagreed with what it said. Wikipedia wants all biographies to be accurate, but sometimes WP:AUTO problems can occur. The only source that we have for Streisand's side of the story is her account in the book. At the time of the court case, it looked as though she wanted to remove the photo from the website rather than just the name tag. Personally I believe that this would have been reasonable. However, something seems to have been lost in translation during the legal action, and she says that she now regards it as a mistake that the court case came to be seen as being about the photo rather than the accompanying name tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

All understood, and thank you Walton22 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I wonder about omitting her reference to security concerns and past intruders which I included. Perhaps you would consider adding something? I think it's a telling part of the 'rebuttal'. Walton22 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done: The photograph and the latitude and longitude coordinates were, when taken on their own, not much worse than the sort of thing that Google Maps and Google Earth do today. Taken in conjunction with the name tag, it did provide a way for a potential intruder to identify the location of the home.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re your edit at my suggestion. Is the situation still exactly as you describe there in terms of visible information on the Web, i.e latittude and longitude co-ordinates of her home? While it is good to cite her security concerns, WP should not provide an instrcution manual on how to use the available information, especially letting know that it is "easy". Ironically, this could end up being a "Streisand effect" in itself, hopefully not with consequences worse than bad publicity. Walton22 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Have made an edit. Walton22 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right and this an interesting point. Streisand says in the book "Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived. That put the safety of my family and myself at risk. We had already experienced several incidents with intruders over the years. So I hope you can understand my concern." Also, the complaint filed by her lawyers in May 2003 makes clear that the giving latitude and longitude of the photos was one of the reasons for the legal action. While the Wikipedia article should be a bit cautious about this, a determined person will be able to find the coordinates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my edit just now is in the interest of caution. Walton22 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Content Approval Review

Greetings Ianmacm,

I hope you are well,

I'm contacting you regarding your article - Westgate shopping mall attack

I have added the names of the great people who you identified on your article. I hope that is fine. Also, I will be creating three pages for Taff Groves, Peter Bach and Lorcan Byrne and add a link to their pages on your article. I hope this is fine too.

Thank you,

Best regards, Workdave254 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was concerned that this edit was giving a name check to people who appeared in news stories but were not overall notable figures in the event. As for creating pages about these people, this would have significant problems with WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well understood and thank you very much for your response.

I'm greatly greatful that you created this article in detail and while going through it, I thought I should add the few names, Mr. Taff, Lorcan and Peter who I noticed you had their titles right.

Actually, I'm from Kenya and also having victims of the attack(wife and kid - escaped with minor injuries and noticibly, the 3 gentlemen happened to have assisted in their escape) I can confirm for sure they are the real people who you have highlighted.

Also, thank you for highlighting the issue that I may face with WP:BLP1E. If in order, I will appreciate your further input on how I can achieve in writing the pages without any problems.

Again, much appreciated. Workdave254 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Gladiator

Thanks for educating me about the problems with my edits on the Gladiator page. I have a question, though. How did you know about my edits immediately after I made them? Is there a system in place that alerts certain editors when potentially problematic edits are made? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I was having a look through my watchlist and saw these edits. Generally speaking, per WP:FILMPLOT there isn't a need to include deleted scenes, and if they are included they should be sourced. Quote: "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Do you happen to know why I didn't receive a notification when you replied? I checked my notifications settings and can't find anywhere to turn off/on notifications for when someone replies to one of my comments/posts. I'm a new editor and I'm still learning all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat: It will generate a notification if you use Template:Reply to. However, I don't usually do this as I assume that users are watching a thread that they have contributed to. Some users get annoyed if they are pinged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Lord Lucan discussion

I don't know, given your helpful work on the various Savile articles, if you have done anything on the Lord Lucan case, but in light of a recent article that talks about a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked, I wonder if you know how I should have phrased the paragraph I have added about it, or how the article should reflect her version of events from now on, which has generally been accepted as fact. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character. Even the author of the article finds the possibility too unbelievable like something out of a Agatha Christie story. ~~ 80.43.251.32 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never been involved with Lord Lucan but will have a look.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on Ian. Admit it... he's in your cellar, isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

He is probably riding Shergar somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

2011 Reno Air Races Crash reversion

Um, did you even read it? Explain to me how you're supposed to steer the plane away from the spectator area if you're incapacitated or unconscious, it's a no-brainer buddy and you shouldn't need "original research" to even know that in the first place.

Maybe watch the Mayday episode which covers the disaster ("Death Race") next time, and you'll see that once the pilot fell unconscious due to the G-forces, he made no attempt to steer the plane away from the spectator area.
XenithXenaku (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because it had problems with WP:HIJACK. Statements should be specifically supported by the reference given.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Galloway

If you can't accept that Gorgeous George is a "controversialist", then who on earth is? FFS! Arrivisto (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've often seen him described as a maverick in news stories, but have yet to see him described as "a controversialist". This is wandering off into WP:OR territory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Probability of a sequence of 26 reds or blacks occurring in a row

Hello, regarding the change I made suggesting that the probability of a sequence of either red or black occurring 26 times in a row is 2×(18/37)²⁶, since the probability of the first occurrence of a red or a black is not 1, but 36/37, then the probability of 26 occurrences in a row is not 1 x (18/37)^26-1, it's (36/37) x (18/37)^26-1, which is 2×(18/37)²⁶. Please explain why you think the original formula is correct. 2A02:2F04:A001:C400:450:9681:1692:82EE (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at Talk:Gambler's_fallacy#Monte_Carlo_Casino_Odds, and there is some ambiguity in how the problem is defined. For a straightforward situation where red or black occurs 26 times in a row, the probability is 1 in 66.6 million, because the probability is 18/37 each time. The actual Monte Carlo story says that black came up 26 times in a row. What the wording in the article is trying to say is that it would have been just as unlikely for red to come up 26 times in a row. To expand, assuming that a red or black has already occurred, the probability of it becoming a sequence of 26 is 1 in 66.6 million. This is what a previous editor wanted and it is the current wording in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)