Talk:Camden bench

new content[edit]

Hi, IP! Please let's discuss before you revert again. I do not understand your edit summary. valereee (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee. Please explain what you do not understand and I will happily explain. 80.7.80.213 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary says "Please see the new reference which notes that this design was required in order to "maintain street furniture" in the street" and the new reference seems to be this pdf: http://www.inthebag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/camden.pdf which wasn't actually attached to any of the content you changed and which even if it was, seems a little iffy -- inthebag.org.uk seems to be a blog, for instance, which isn't considered a reliable source. The pdf looks like it originally came from Design Against Crime, which helped design the bench and therefore is a not an independent source.

All content needs to be cited directly to a source, preferably inline. We need to report what reliable independent sources are saying. Affiliated sources cannot be used for anything except noncontroversial facts such as who designed it, what the measurements are, where it's being used, etc.

I went through the article yesterday to check sources, and many of them aren't good enough (which is why I've tagged the statements they support as ^{[better source needed]}), and other statements are unsourced, so I tagged those as ^{[citation needed]}.

Consider making an account, which will allow other editors to more easily communicate with you. It's fast, free, and easy. valereee (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, I have managed to find the original description of the bench. This was read by most of the critics, who ignored that the whole reason for the bench was to reduce the complaints to avoid it being removed from central London, as has happened to many benches on the street. Thus the whole point of the bench was to encourage walking and the use of this new public space. The bench also set new standards of inclusive design, which again has been overlooked and some commentators have even criticised it for lacking. I hope this is a better reference as many of them are no longer maintained.

https://issuu.com/grupo_amop/docs/camden_bench_book 80.7.80.213 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 80.7! That's still an affiliated source. We can't use it to state in Wikivoice that the point was to encourage walking and the use of this new public space, that it set new standards for inclusive design, or that these reasons have been overlooked. Those are all opinions, which can't come from an affiliated source. I've been working on this today, though, and I've actually added a history section that does explain why the bench was commissioned. valereee (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. This is a copy of the original article which explains that the reason for designing the Camden bench was to provide seating, otherwise it was likely to be removed.

https://www.externalworksindex.co.uk/entry/2841/Factory-Furniture/Public-realm-seating-in-Camden-resolves-urban-challenges/ 80.7.80.213 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that appears to be written by Factory Furniture, so not an independent source. Wikipedia reports what others are saying about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. The places for article subjects to talk about yourselves is LinkedIn, Facebook, other social media. Wikipedia is completely different. Article subjects have no control over the content here.

You can read more about these policies at WP:reliable sources. valereee (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee, I hope these are more suitable articles from a recognised source, see the bottom of page 8 and then 9. It should help you to correct the whitewashing of this issue by commentators who have overlooked the fact that these benches were designed so they could be reintroduced after simple park benches had been removed from many London streets following complaints about anti-social behaviour. So if the benches in Great Queen Street attracted any anti-social behaviour they would be removed and there would have been no seating, just a paved space. They also created best practice in inclusive design by providing more ergonomic seats in 5 different sizes and heights.

https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/UD114_mag_lores.pdf

https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/UD129_magazine.pdf 80.7.80.213 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Long wrote both of those, so they are not independent. I've explained this multiple times. I'm not sure why it doesn't seem to be landing, but I'm not going to waste my time checking any more of your sources. You can ask questions at WP:Teahouse.

You cannot control what WP says about you, your company, your town, or your product. We report what independent reliable sources say about you.

Again, you can say anything you like on your social media. Wikipedia is not social media. valereee (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just to add a little note that it WOULD be valid to cite these above sources to state that the designers/creators/commissioning organisation had the intent to “encourage walking and the use of this new public space”. The creator’s intention is an important and relevant thing to include. However, personally speaking, it does strike me as perverse to say that a chair is successful because it is designed to make people walk - I.e. to NOT use it. That’s like saying a new diet-food product is successful because it tastes so bad people prefer to starve. “Setting a new standard in…” is also marketing-speak unless it is clarified what specific standard is being referenced. words to the effect of “exceeding technical-standard XYZ set by the UK Standards Authority” might be more clear. Witty lama 08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wittylama, I'm not sure we can use their own statements for even their own intentions. I'd want to see a RS discussing the stated intentions. People and companies and municipalities characterizing their own intentions is...open to interpretation, at best. We can, however, find someone else saying, "According to FF, the design is intended to encourage people to walk." The sources are all blurring together for me at this point, but it's possible someone in one of the included sources did say that. valereee (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]