Talk:Elizebeth Smith Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Elizebeth Friedman)
Jump to: navigation, search



'Although she is often referred to as the wife of William F. Friedman...' did sound a bit patronizing - she was a notable person in her own right. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


This article seems to rely heavily on the NSA's Hall of Honor entry. I have added citations to the page throughout the article, and added the Template:Copypaste to the 'Government Service' section. Please could someone look at revising that section and using additional sources? Or remove the template and add a note here if the source text is properly licensed (I can't see that it is)? Whilomish (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It indeed confesses in the references to being adapted from NSA.GOV Hall of Honor testimonial. If a US GOV website makes no copyright claim, it is US GOV copyright. Isn't that almost as good as Public Domain? (Unlike Crown Copyright, which is not.) -- Bill (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Elizebeth Smith Friedman - move[edit]

I'm starting work to improve the page here and it is becoming pretty clear after adding citations and looking at supporting material that the Wikipedia entry should be moved from Elizebeth Friedman to Elizebeth Smith Friedman. The collected papers uses the full three words of her name -- and I asked the author of the most recent book on her, who did a ton of primary research within this collection, if he uses the three words for her name and he said yes he does. So if there's no objection I'm going to go ahead and change the page title. I think the prior name should be a redirect. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of metadata on this page.[edit]

Twice now an editor is deleting content / metadata on this page.

I have reverted the edits because this deletion constitutes vandalism on the page. I also see that this editor almost exclusively deletes contents from pages as their sole contribution to Wikipedia. Here I am trying to improve the content of pages.

The removal of the language tag of the works is problematic because once I have finished updating this Wikipedia entry on English Wikipedia, the tags will be important when I update and transfer the citations to the other language pages that exist for this page. Also, English language tags don't even appear on the visible entry, they are suppressed on En Wiki but will appear when I copy the citations. English language tags are also now typically -- and automatically -- added when using the RefToolbar 2.0 Citoid lookup. They are meant to be there.

The addition of open or closed content to a citation is a new thing that is supported on Wikipedia as part of the free culture and open access movement. And adding a printed ISBN is helpful to make the citation complete.

The fact that this editor has reverted my edits twice is a big concern. There seems to be no acknowledgment that this is a destructive pattern of editing. They are also not bringing the discussion to this Talk page, which is another argument for the restoration of the good content -- and the framing of their removal of content from the infoboxes and citations as vandalism. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: "Vandalism" does not equate with "edits I happen to disagree with", and your statement is inappropriate. Please assume good faith and remain civil.
Per Help:Citation Style 1, language tags should be used when the language is not English. When you transfer the citation to other language pages, you should typically be translating the template and parameter names anyways, so you can add that at that time. The clutter of the GBooks link is also unnecessary - the shortened link is sufficient.
The citation to which you are adding {{open access}} is not OA - you can use Template:Cite_news#Subscription_or_registration_required instead. And you're citing the electronic version of the book, not the print version - the ebook ISBN should be added instead if there is one.
The |years_active= entry you have added is not currently supported by article text, and initialisms are not other names. Also, line breaks are deprecated. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually this is not an issue of me agreeing with these deletions or not. It is not personal here. I resent that being used as an argument against deleting content here, as I am well aware of and support the collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing.
The objection here is about the fact that this is a removal of important and functional metadata, whether or not WP:RULEZ has caught up to improved metadata, especially as it relates to Infoboxes and citations.
If this was a case of constructive editing that improved the page that would be one thing, but deleting information in this case is not constructive or helpful. This destructive editing is coming from the perspective of not assuming good faith in the contribution of information -- and is not being done in support of adding metadata to the page, is not assuming good faith that the edits are constructive and are being made in a good faith effort to improve the page.
They are other names if she is published under those names, which she is. The subject of this page is cited in works under these different names, which if I have enough time to add, I will do so. It is important in terms of discoverability that these name variations be included in the infobox and entry. Maybe because the subject of the article is a woman you might not be familiar with the need to include these? They are listed in Wikidata, and are critical to discovery there as well as across the various language Wikipedias. There is no justification to deleting them, as it harms both discoverability and reduces the notability of her published work and career.
There is no need to reduce the Google Book link to a non-digitized asset. Taking off the actual direct link makes the citation less useful.
If these deletions were improving the page -- and if you as an editor were adding content -- that would be completely understandable. Instead this seems like a bias on your part as an editor to make Wikipedia the way YOU see it, versus encouraging forward thinking and practical application of metadata to improve the encyclopedia.
By removing content twice on your part this is becoming a three reversion issue on your part. I would kindly ask you to stop. BrillLyle (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect - I have reverted once, you twice. You are also the one who made it personal with your accusations of vandalism, which are unfounded and which I would request you strike, and with your continued reference to my edits as "destructive" and your lack of corresponding reference to guidelines or policy to support that characterization. If in your opinion the "rulez" are not what they should be, it would be more appropriate for you to go seek consensus to change them rather than attempt to argue against them at the article level. At the moment, AFAICT your arguments are based only in "a bias on your part as an editor to make Wikipedia the way YOU see it". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am NOT wrong here. It might be helpful to examine the impact of the editing that you are doing on Wikipedia. I stand by my very justified concerns here. It does not assume good faith and it is behavior that will drive editors away from contributing -- which is where this is heading for me. I am trying to contribute metadata that is usable and helpful. This is indefensible, frankly, which confuses me that you continue to personalize this very clearly not personal problem.
So the question here is: Are you comfortable pushing an editor off a page, an editor who is trying to contribute content in a meaningful way, because of of YOUR beliefs of how Wikipedia should be? You seem to be the only editor doing this work consistently. I don't see how this is a helpful thing. I can stop editing this page if you have such ownership issues. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with you contributing content in a meaningful way; that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to raise concerns with some of the editorial choices you are making. I'm unwatching this page at this point, but I would encourage you to reflect on the many criticisms you have made which are relevant to your own approach, as the one exhibiting most of the personalization and assuming of bad faith and ownership in this discussion is you. I wish you good luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, maybe look at Help:Citation Style 2 -- Citation Style 1 is old. Regarding Citation Style 1 -- I am using the RefToolbar 2.0 that is in the current deployment of Wikipedia citations, which allows for the metadata I am inputting. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, you don't always have to translate citations across different language encyclopedias. Other languages often automatically translate the templates. Ideally the citation templates should be in the local language, and ideally a bot would translate them, but it is not mandatory to have this machine readable text translated in all cases. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Lovely. So when you move citations to other wikis, you can add the language at that point. It doesn't need to be here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, not lovely. That is a sarcastic and non-collegial comment. Please take the time to examine how this comment can be perceived.
Additionally, at this point your current additions to the page exhibit a form of aggressive attacking the content. The overly critical approach taken here is becoming a bit outrageous and oversize to the entry. I don't see it being done in other entries so wonder what the reasoning is here. To add a citation and a citation needed in the infobox is overkill. It's very aggressive. It would be great if you would take a moment to evaluate whatever agendas you have to contributing to this page. Just providing feedback in the hopes that you might take this constructively. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)