Talk:Bruce Harrell

Accurate enough, but...

User:AJames32, the major contributor to this article has no other contributions to Wikipedia, and may have taken some of this verbatim from sites such as http://www.electbruceharrell.com/. Someone may want to take a closer look at whether everything is decently cited and whether it is written in a manner that neither violates copyrights nor slavishly follows the subject's own campaign-oriented self-account. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This reads just like a campaign page bio. Just revised it to remove a lot of campaign-style material that characterizes actions ("progressive") and implies that certain legislation has accomplished or will accomplish goals when no evidence of such is present. Avocats (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bruce Harrell. 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/20130903205138/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021287864_harrelldojxml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021287864_harrelldojxml.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062344/http://seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=9833&dept=40 to http://seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=9833&dept=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930233902/http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?ID=10747&Dept=28 to http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?ID=10747&Dept=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131804442000/http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/great_st_initiative.htm to http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/great_st_initiative.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131804450400/http://www.seattle.gov/council/harrell/issues_archive.htm to http://www.seattle.gov/council/harrell/issues_archive.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131804442000/http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/great_st_initiative.htm to http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/great_st_initiative.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

Should the infobox contain Choice #1 (the current version) or Choice #2? -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Choices

#1 (current infobox image)

#2

Infobox images to choose from

#1

They are both good, I like #1 slightly better because it shows him in action, and because the low camera angle on #2 is very slightly unflattering. The argument for #2 would be that #1 is chopped off a bit at the top. RFC may be a bit overkill on this but IMO that's a minor problem. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

#2

• Support. This image is preferable over the current image because it is taken at a better angle; current infobox image is cropped too close at the top and is a profile photo. Infobox images, according to MOS, should give a view of the article subject from the front rather than the side. Additionally, article subject is smiling (a bit). All of this makes for a friendlier and more appealing infobox image. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BRD - agree with discussion points below. Use RfC as a means of dispute resolution as recommended at WP:RfC. Use the talk page or simply WP:BRD if you wish to raise a discussion in the absence of a dispute. Appreciate the good faith, but RfC is not necessary here (although the policy page almost gives the editor's exact situation as an example of a correctly phrased RfC, so definitely not wrong to start one) . Edaham (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although his facial expression is a little awkward, the angle and lighting in #2 is much better. Meatsgains (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion

• Why... are you starting an RfC over this? Just put the better picture in the article. Same on the Ed Murray article. Was there some editing dispute I can't find evidence of? As explained in the RfC guidelines "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." A reasonable attempt would be to either post a simple question, "any one opposed to this new picture?", or better yet, WP:BOLDly replace the picture and see if anyone objects. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:SNOW also make clear that we are not supposed to invoke a formal process of dispute resolution unless an actual dispute exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the polite thing to do. There are likely people who watch this article and would be upset should the photo just be changed out without discussion. I'm trying to avoid conflict and a possible edit war. Do you have a preference one over another? If so, feel free to take part in the RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not the polite thing to do. You are broadcasting alerts to large numbers of busy editors to come here, read a lot of trivia, and help make a trivial decision that is not in any way controversial, that you yourself could have easily made. "There are likely people who watch this article and would be upset"? Who? Why? There is no evidence at all on this talk page or the article history that there has ever been edit warring, or any serious disputes. There is no evidence that there are passionate Bruce Harrell fans who will be incensed if his iconic image is not presented just so. Or to be more succinct: Don't stuff beans up your nose.

Please cut this out. Don't start any more unnecessary RfCs. Please close the two unnecessary RfCs you just created.

When the guidelines specifically tell you "don't do X", then doing X is not "polite". It's what we call WP:POINTy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you really need to back off with the tone and aggressive attitude. If anything needs to stop here, it's you treating me like a child and telling me what I should and shouldn't do. I'm neither an idiot nor a newbie. Rather than shouting orders at me and needlessly linking to policy, how about you stop for a minute and realize an experienced editor such as myself probably has good reason for doing it this way. Further, if you want to know the main reason why I'm doing it this way, I suggest you take a look at my talk page, search for a certain discussion, and see if you can figure it out. Hopefully, once you figure it out, you'll see it's the "bureaucracy" that needs to change, not me. -- ψλ ● ✉ 09:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouting? Nope, never did that. Calling you an idiot or a newbie? Nope, never did that. Treating you like a child? No, I'm treating you like an experienced editor who can be expected to read and understand a tool like an RfC. Don't make false accusations.

An experienced editor such as yourself ought to be able look at points made by someone who disagrees with you without resorting to hyperbole. Not every edit requires an RfC. When a non-dispute is treated like a dispute (on two different articles), at least some editors are going to say so. An experienced editor ought to expect that. I pointed out this is one of those cases described in very first section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment in which an RfC is premature, and I pointed to specific polices and guidelines that support my assertions. The worst thing I did was hint that this is WP:POINTy. Perhaps I was going a little far with that.

But in reply, you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point! What do you know? There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one. You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me".

If you didn't want to boldly change the image, you could have posted a simple question about it, and waited ot see if there is any opposition. Only after you and that hypothetical editor could not agree on the image change should you have used one of the dispute resolution tools like an RfC. But you did it because of motives that have nothing to do with either the article Bruce Harrell or Ed Murray (Washington politician).

Can't unring that bell, but please don't do it again. The only reason I'm pressing this issue is that I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute. We've all had previous content disputes that left us feeling bitter. It happens. Assuming every little edit is going to become an unresolvable dispute, and jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"you post an admission that you are, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point!...You did so to make your point that "it's the bureaucracy that needs to change, not me" No, I didn't. You're reading way more into what I wrote that what's actually there.

"There was never any reason to use a dispute resolution process to simply replace a poor image with a better one." RfCs are not just for dispute resolution. From the RfC project page: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning...article content."

"I'd like you to agree to not start any more RfCs unless there is a dispute...jumping straight to a formal tribunal, is disruptive. Can you agree not to do it again? Nope, I sure won't. As was already pointed out to you above, RfCs are not just for content disputes but also for requesting outside input concerning article content, which is precisely what I was doing. Remember, when you first attacked me over this and demanded to know why I started this RfC, I answered, "Because it's the polite thing to do"? That was my reason, plain and simple - still is - and that reason is completely within guidelines for opening an RfC. If you are bothered by employing the RfC process for requesting outside input concerning article content, you are, of course, welcome to pass by the RfCs I open in the future. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody "attacked" you. Please stop making false accusations. You are not requesting "input" on which picture to use. You had already made up your mind which picture is best. You instantly announced which images you preferred the moment you posted both RfCs, without waiting for any input at all. You didn't do this because you wanted help making a decision. You did it because you wanted to make the process run, for reasons not related to Bruce Harrell or Ed Murray. As WP:SNOW says "process for its own sake". I appreciate your invitation to not participate in unnecessary RfCs in the future, but I'm sorry that you didn't also mention I am quite welcome to comment on any RfC that I see, and I'm quite welcome to say what I want about it. You might have noticed that two editors besides me also think this is a waste of time. I'm not the only one who doesn't appreciate this abuse of process. I predict that if you act on your stated intention to continue starting frivolous RfCs, unpleasant community sanctions will force you to desist. That process, too, will be an avoidable waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did attack, from your first comments in this thread to the last. You also have continued to assign nefarious intent to why I started this RfC despite my reasonable and accurate explanation of why I started this RfC. You keep telling me to stop making false accusations -- while you make numerous false accusations. The drama you have created here was completely unnecessary, completely avoidable, yet you persist in making it even more drama-laden. I gave you a suggestion for the future on how to keep from being disturbed by my appropriate use of this process, but now you're saying you will read and respond and comment to any RfCs I create in the future because it's your right to do so. If this is all so ridiculous and a waste of time, why are you still wasting your time and why are you committing to waste your time in the future at an RfC I start? That's just weird, to be honest. Even weirder (but at this point in the weirdness, not unsurprising) is that you're threatening to have me sanctioned for... doing something completely within policy and guidelines. My suggestion is that you get a cup of decaf tea, take a breath and relax. There's nothing happening with this RfC that will break anything. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I quite dislike editors telling other editors when to start and when not to start RfCs. What happens if you go around changing a lot of images? Someone decides they disagree with you, demands you repent from going around changing BLP images, there is nothing to repent of, and so it goes over to ANI where of course there is nothing to do so it just goes round and round. Shots fired and throats choked, but nothing resolved. Last time I checked the FRS was opt in, and last time I checked I was the one with the most subscriptions. Little RfCs like these are a matter of course, are polite, take very little time to attend, and a nothing but a net gain to the Project. If you write "Is anyone opposed to this change" you will have to wait months and months for a response because no one will see it. That's why the FRS exists.
• RFCs are for more than disputes. I repeat: RFCs are for more than disputes. WP:RFC says Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages. (my emphasis). … Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. In my experience, nothing short of summoning 3 or 4 other editors is going to be "faster" or "more effective". Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. Only applicable when RFC is being applied to a dispute. As I have demonstrated above RFCs are for more than disputes, so when there is no dispute, this section can be disregarded. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted, and agree with L3X1, having reviewed the guideline. Also I'm a bit shocked that so many words were expended on arguing whether or not to start an RfC to implement the change. I agree that the change could have been made without one, but I see no reason to give an editor such a hard time for it when the only real result of having started one is that more editors get involved with the discussion. That aside, for what it is worth at this stage, I support the change to the image. Please go ahead with the edit. It's a much clearer photograph. Edaham (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently, Dennis Bratland thought it appropriate to show impatience and just change out the photo but not close out this RfC? I'm stunned by the lack of boundaries and consideration, to be frank, but I should know by now that's status quo in Wikipedia. Meatsgains, would you be kind enough to close out this RfC? -- ψλ ● ✉ 13:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Meatsgains (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wanted the RfC closed immediately, and I explained why. I was told no. Fine. Who am I to say others may not have an RfC if they really want one?

  Editing policy makes clear that I'm still free to improve articles as I see fit, and so I went ahead and made the article better. Which anybody is free to do. It is not "impatience" to boldly improve articles. It's called "editing Wikipedia". It's what we do. Since nobody seriously objected to the new photo anyway, and if they really did, they would have reverted my change. But as I have been saying, it's uncontroversial and therefore not in need of a formal dispute resolution process.

  All this time spend on this silly photo, by so many editors, while the actual content of the article is still a total mess, mostly written by a a PR flack for Harrell's campaign. This is why I wanted to avoid this. It saps the limited amount of volunteer labor we have on useless discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You brought unwanted, unneeded drama and caused disruption. When you didn't get what you demanded, you caused more disruption by ignoring the RfC and idea of consensus and changing the image on your own. Now, you're trying to justify your disruption by claiming you are improving the article as you see fit. Which is part of the problem in this case: what you see fit to do was your objective, regardless of what others said, what policy says, and what's considered civil. As has already been pointed out to you, you voluntarily signed up to be notified of RfCs. Not every RfC is for everyone. If you are disturbed by certain RfCs, maybe be more choosy rather than cutting down others and complaining in the RfC discussion. Wikipedia is not compulsory, no one forced you to be here. It's okay to bow out of doing some work, it's not okay to intentionally disrupt. FACT: What saps "the limited amount of volunteer labor we have" more than an RfC you object to is the kind of bullshit you started and perpetuated here. Next time, do everyone a favor and just move on to something else rather than do ^^^this^^^. -- ψλ ● ✉ 14:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Predecessor/successor after redistricting

I think it would be useful to add the predecessor and successor for his district and former position. The titles and geographic boundaries may have changed, but redistricting is something that occurs. It doesn't seem useful to break all those links and lose that information. Additional context about the change can be added in the main article text. Jwfowble, you are the one who reverted my edit. Would you be fine with this addition? It would be the same as Rob Johnson (Seattle politician) and Lorena Gonzalez (Seattle politician), which you have also been working on, and would also match with Kshama Sawant. See also the table of members at the bottom of the Seattle City Council article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert but this wasn't like a political redistricting. It went from all 9 at large to 7 districts and 2 at large, so these were new council districts being made with no real correlation to the prior at large seat numbers. It was phased over 2 years. The councilmembers actually had to pick if they wanted to run at large or in the district they lived in. I wasn't trying to revert you here, apologies. I was sandboxing and didn't even get a pop-up notice when I clicked publish. I'd say "redistricted" or just leave out the succeeded by column because only ~1/7th of the people who voted for Bruce in Position 3 were able to vote for the District 3 person.

The local custom (and it's tricky and sometimes overlooked) is to refer to District 1-7 and Position 8-9 (citywide). Before, they were all positions 1-9 (all citywide). It has been confusing wiki contributors for a while. Jwfowble (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, Jwfowble! I understand what happened with the redistricting, but I still think leaving out the predecessor/successor will leave a gap in information on the page. Redistricting across the country has sometimes entirely changed the voting population or the number of eligible voters for a district. The numbers for the council have stayed the same with 9 total, and two of the positions (8 and 9) stayed the same. I think it would be useful to be able to see that Sawant was previously in Position 2 and that it was then changed to District 2 in 2015 when it was redistricted from an at-large position, with a wikilink available in the infobox to take you to the previous page for some of that context. Do you think we could address your concerns with additional context or information in the text of the article? Mention that it is a newly created district in the main text but leave the succession information in the infobox? I think that will be far less confusing than excluding it, especially if you have already seen confusion over the issue. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is how I had quickly edited the text earlier... "Following years of at-large city council elections, Bruce was re-elected into the newly created District 2 position following a change to district-based city council elections. On January 4, 2016 Harrell was sworn into the District 2 office and elected council president by fellow councilmembers." In my mindset, Kshama was Position 2 and ran for re-election into a newly created District 3 position. The infobox supposedly has a flag for redistricting, but I can't tell that it does anything/how to use it effectively. "Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use |prior_term= to indicate which district(s) he was in before." I guess my issue is that it wasn't true succession in that they didn't compete and I can't tell that my attempts to flag redistricting are being added to the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_officeholder Jwfowble (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Good points, Jwfowble, and I agree with you that it should leave out the predecessor/successor fields because they were not competitive and are new districts. You could change it manually to look like it has the prior term working, but I think your previous version may be the most appropriate for this situation. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Jwfowble, FYI, here is an example of the "prior_term" working, but with different parameters used: Pat Garofalo. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert I restored the predecessor and successor links but made hidden editor comments that it was a redistricting until I can figure out how the infobox actually means to handle such things. Maybe my efforts to explain the change would be better served with a few more sentences about the initiative that changed it on the seattle city council wiki page.

Edit conflict here too. I'll look at what you wrote/linked to. Jwfowble (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You have a better understanding of the guidelines and how to do this than me, so please do whatever you think is best. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the confidenceWallyfromdilbert, but I've been getting a lot better at editing by debating things with you, even if I was really frustrated with you earlier. I'm tired and going to leave it with links for now, because my quick-test of how districts get handled suggests it was designed specifically for house positions and it came back pretty mangled when I added it to bruce's test infobox in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jwfowble/sandbox#Infobox_test Jwfowble (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Urban Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannah Raymond, MSUSunday, Marinluxgrant, Spartanwiki19 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SarahReckhow (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

change "interred" to "interned", his mother was incarcerated not buried 2601:602:8D80:47A0:F1FD:C663:DC95:74A9 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)