This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years.




GWU
This user is a graduate of
The George Washington University




For purely aesthetic reasons, this user would like his country to be a constitutional monarchy.




Personal links edit

Tom's Sandbox
Drafts
Sandbox 2
WIKI COMMONS USER PAGE
Philip Frohman
Clan Maclachlan
Clan MacIntyre
Scottish Heraldry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources

General Information edit

Hello,

I became interested in editing Wikipedia when I discovered that the article on Philip Frohman the architect of the Washington National Cathedral was a stub. At that time I had been a member of the Cathedral Association for more than 25 years and was able to supply enough information to expand the stub into an article.

I also expanded the Clan MacIntyre article from stub to a grade B article and subsequently achieved a "good article" rating for it. I have been organizing and contributing material to the Scottish heraldry article. I am now working on updating the article on Eli Rosenbaum.

Although I am developing a bit of experience with Wikipedia, I always welcome any advice, guidance and support. I have encountered a few dedicated Wikipedians who have been very helpful and to whom I am most grateful.

Tomaterols

When facts--aren’t! edit

In working on the article about the architect Philip Frohman I retrieved his obituaries from both The Washington Post and The New York Times. Both stated that, among his works, Frohman had designed the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Los Angeles. Most people assume that anything reported in either The Washington Post or New York Times is accurate. Indeed, an earlier version of the Wikipedia article entitled "Reliable sources" specifically stated (with caveats that do not apply to this situation) that: “Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post . . . ." [1] After all, if something appears in both the Post and the Times it must be true.

In this case, however, there was discrepancy between the obituaries and a book published several years after Frohman’s death by his successor at the National Cathedral. Frohman’s successor noted that he had designed two cathedrals, both Episcopal. One (mentioned in the Post obituary), is indisputably located in Baltimore. The other, however, is identified as located in Orlando, Florida, not Los Angeles. Further research confirmed that the Episcopal Cathedral Church of St. Luke in Orlando was, in fact, Frohman designed.

Meanwhile, the Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles at the time of Frohman’s death has been replaced by a modern church. The prior cathedral, St. Vibiana's, has been deconsecrated and placed on the register of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. St. Vibiana’s, however, is a Baroque-inspired Italianate building, completely unlike Frohman’s customary architectural style. More significantly, Ezra Kysor is credited with the design of St. Vibiana's and according to the National Trust, the former cathedral was completed more than a decade before Frohman was born.

Aparently, the Times and the Post both obtained their information from the same source, but that source was wrong. A good illustration that because a source is impeccable, doesn’t mean it’s unimpeachable.

--Tomaterols (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My Reference Links edit


[1] Eli Rosenbaum award press release


  Done
Articles
Philip Frohman Article

Wikipedia Formatting and Style
Cheetsheet
Fair Use Template
Footnotes
How to Edit a Page
Linked Citations Article
Style Manual
User Page Design

Graphics issues
HELP DESK--Wikimedia
Requesting Copyright Permission
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing
All common Licenses Use Attribution share alike
commons license O.K.
IMAGES
Graphics Tutorial
Copyright Questions commons:Commons talk:Licensing.

Step by step instructions for obtaining consent: Commons:OTRS

Miscellaneous
Administrator Page
Good Articles
Help desk
Newcomers
Turabian Cites

Edit Counter
Edit counter

  1. ^ The July 2022 version has been revised. The article now notes: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)".