Talk:Hazel Watrous

trivial contents

@Greghenderson2006:, Spintendo told you here we generally don't include they took x classes at y school where they did not graduate. I have removed it here. I see no indication you've discussed the re-insertion as expected per WP:ONUS even though you restored it because you felt it was "important" in your opinion. Please kindly remove it, discuss and establish consensus. Courtesy ping to @Melcous and Netherzone: Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, why do you think this is important information to include? It seems trivial to me since there was no degree received from those institutions. I agree with Spintendo and Graywalls on this matter. The most important aspects of a persons life should be included in an encyclopedia article, not every single little detail. All those little details would be fine in a book about her life, or in a human interest profile, but not here. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see my reasoning below. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should include details about early life and education. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Content Discussion

@Melcous:@Netherzone:@Graywalls: Below is a discussion to establish consensus to include the following text about Hazel Watrous's education in her article: "She did advanced studies in painting and design at both the California College of the Arts and at San Francisco Art Institute under landscape painter Gottardo Piazzoni."

• Reasons to include this information:

1. Advanced studies may refer to a postgraduate studies and/or specialized training in an area, e.g. painting and design classes.
2. Taking these courses contributed to her ability to design costumes and sets for positions she took e.g. she was an Art Supervisor for Alameda City schools.
3. Watrous was a student under Gottardo Piazzoni at the San Francisco Art Institute. This is important as Piazzoni was a highly respected Swiss-born American landscape painter. This relationship is cited in her obituaries and biographies written about her.

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited from association with well-known persons. WP is not a memorial site where every detail of a person's life is included. MOS:ROLEBIO states that: avoid defining a person in terms of their relationships. WP:Writing about women states that Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable woman, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of her relationships (wife/mother/daughter of). and I would add to that a student of. When writing about women, best practices are to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments. What is important are the degree(s) she received, not what famous person she studied with at institutions where she took a few classes. IMO, if she did not receive a degree from those institutions, it is not relevant, it's filler. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

1.) AskArt appears to be equivalent of a moderated message forum where the webmaster decides on the quality of user submitted contents. Whether we call that editorial board equivalent or some message board mod, we leave it to RSN.

2/3.) Short-form obituaries are generally FAMILY submitted, which means they emphasize what they want seen, suppress what they don't. For example, when drug addicts die, family submitted obituaries often reads "suddenly died", "died in his/her sleep" even though. A pattern often consistent with copywriting and public relations editing is to emphasize ultra-trivial flattering minor things while omitting unflattering things. By not implementing anything that's based on flimsy crummy sources and relying mainly on coverage by independent secondary sources (i.e. not family members, not board members of affiliated groups, and not colleagues), it helps maintain neutrality.

4.) see above response.

I don't think you're ready to be editing on main article space. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I am still learning and you have helped a great deal in my understanding of WP:NP and WP:RS. I feel I have a strong understanding of researching, and providing sources. I need to improve on what is trevia and what is important. I am confident that I can continue to contribute to the article space by cleaning up articles I have written, helping others in their stub articles, and writing comprehensive articles for this encylopedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I work on a lot of visual arts articles, and can say with confidence, that AskArt is a subscription based, user-submitted content site, where galleries pay to list their artists, auction houses pay to list their auctions/auction results, and self-promoting artists (and sometimes their collectors) pay to advertise their work in a manner that does not appear to be direct advertising, and it's much cheaper than advertising in an art magazine or trade journal. Not a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. I didn't realize AskArt was not a reliable source. It is used quite a lot on Wikipeida. For example, if you search AskArt.com it is used 48,911 times. Perhaps it should be on the WP:RSP article list. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It may have been considered so 10 or 15 years ago, but nevertheless, it IS a primary source, subscription-based, and user-submitted content. There are multiple payment tiers to add content - i.e. it's a pay-to-play site. Artists and/or their gallerists pay to add content to promote the sales or auction values of works of art. It is kind of a cross between a listing service and a database. This content is not vetted by fact-checkers, art historians or art critics but is useful to art collectors (and some institutions) to analyze the value of their art holdings) by recording the monetary value of artworks traded in the commercial marketplace, which BTW is an unregulated industry. Hope that helps explain in more detail. Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg, how do you know this claim is a fact: Taking these courses contributed to her ability to design costumes and sets for positions she took e.g. she was an Art Supervisor for Alameda City schools.? I don't find that in any of the sources, they just say she took courses with Gottardo Piazzoni. Is that an assumption or an opinion on your part? Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion and the possibility of making an assumption. The fact that she took advanced courses in design gave her the skills to design costumes and set as listed in her obituary and this obituary as well as design 30 residental designs. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No Greg, you are making up that claim based on your own assumptions and desires. Of the three links in your note above,

1) Says she was a private pupil of the painter Gottardo Piazzoni who regarded her as his most gifted student. It says nothing about him considering her a gifted costume or set designer, nor school art supervisor, this is esp. poignant since she studied painting with him not the above fields.

2) All it says is the was a private pupil of Gottardo Piazzoni.

3) There is only one mention of Gottardo Piazzoni, and it is not in the context of Waltrous and does not mention her within the context of residential design the mention of Piazzoni is within the context of a man named Whitman.

The section on synthesis WP:SYNTH in WP's POLICY on no original research clearly states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. You are interpreting what the sources actually state to come to your own conclusions to paint the subject in the light in which you want them to be perceived. Therefore you are misrepresenting the sources. This is something you actually do quite frequently in your articles, and it does not follow our POLICIES on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this detail. Based on what you are saying I will avoid doing this. I think we can close this discussion. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Greg so that you fully understand the gravity, this is not about me and what I am saying, it is what is clearly stated in Wikipedia's policies that have been crafted through the process of consensus over a period of years by multiple editors. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. It is important not to add original research per policy. I appreciate you trying to help regarding this issue. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)