Talk:Florence Scovel Shinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Florence Scovel Shinn article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Comment

This article mainly talks about Florence Scovell Shinn's published writings.

It would be useful to add some more about her life and her religious upbringing. However any facts should have reference to newspaper articles / advertisements or other publications from her time.

220.253.122.243 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Richard Lynton

[edit] More Biographical Info Needed

Here's the thing: this lady and her writings may (and in fact do) appeal to many people around the globe. But, rightly or wrongly, the validity of a teaching is bound to be compared against the actual life and tangible achievements of the "teachers" themselves. (To put it more succintly: "if this teaching is so great, let me see how it's been working for YOU, the teacher".)

Lo and behold: Florence, who interprets disease (among other tribulations) as a deviation fom the "Law", only lived 69 years herself! Why? What happened? How is it even possible, in light of her teachings? Or is it that she didn't apply them to her own life?

As you can see, certain "trivial" data are actually of paramount importance in cases like this one. (And she is by no means the only short-lived prophet of self-mastery: the same goes for Patanjali, for example, and quite a few "masters", who actually lived less than their average neighbour.)

BTW (and totally irrelevantly), I "dig" Florence alright - I don't have any grievances against her. But the circumstances of her comparatively early demise certainly deserve a mention.

Anyone...?

Rlynton - I agree that this is worthy of comment. Perhaps her imagination got the better of her! I also find it interesting that she says you must be in harmony with something in order to attract it. Simultaneously she argues that you must be unemotional in the face of adverse conditions otherwise they will keep repeating in some form or another. Of course if you become in harmony with an adverse condition then it is no longer an adverse condition and there is no preferred condition to which to move.

~~How long she lived tells us nothing about the truth of her teachings. It's not how long but how (well) you live. She keeps mentioning whatever is ours 'by divine right'. The years that she lived were surely hers by divine right. No more, no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.110 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Baker Eddy

Someone has deleted the reference to Mary Baker Eddy in the opening paragraph. I think she is fundamental to the New Thought Movement as Quimby discovered 'mind over matter' and healing the spirit while Eddy turned it into a philosophy, a religion, a way of life and a major book.

While Christian Scientists may not see her as part of New Thought, the fact that she trained so many who are makes her worthy of a mention.

- Surely she deserves a mention. What I am not able to understand is why she starts this frontal assault on what she terms the evil "flesh". It is there that I miss the link between the two. If we're made the way we are - in the perfect image and likeness of the One, the creator must have meant us to have our physical bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your beautiful work

Sori I couldn't leave this on your talk page. Just a few pointers for User:203.217.78.129 at [1] – it's okay to leave in a query such as that the external links aren't working. Then when you fix them, you just add a note to say you did. Otherwise people won't find proof of your beautiful work hidden away in the history and they may not realise the fixing has been done. And you miss out on being appreciated on the article's talk page. Removing tags is different for example, or editing an article, because that's not editing other people's talk. Cheers n hapi new year. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability & sources

This article appears to be sourced almost entirely to:

  • Shinn's own writings;
  • florencescovelshinn.wwwhubs.com, a site promoting her books; and
  • askart.com, an art auction guide site, that offers a brief thumbnail sketch of her work as an illustrator (along with similar ones of thousands of other minor artists).

I hardly think that this qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HrafnTalkStalk 04:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The article is still in process and there;s plenty of room for improvement. My position is that I understand "independent of the subject" meas not just the book (or writings) being self-referential but having third party stuff as well. I felt these were the articles and publications which included her among artists in her own right and by association. Even if they are via an auction site, they do cite extant texts. Minor artists are a category just below major artists and can be notable at this level, and tend to include women. I found it interesting that the wiki article beefs up her writings when she seems to be a notable minor artist and from that point of view the second half of her life appears to be a complete change. The challenge is to do some research and find the link between what she was and what she became and why. It's easy to pick holes in other people's work and harder to do the follow up so, happy hunting to you, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in existence for nearly a year and is extremely poorly sourced and unbalanced. The vast majority of the article is a series of unencyclopaedic quotes. The range of sources is extremely narrow, and are from sources that are unscholarly, of unknown authorship and unknown and doubtful editorial oversight, and having a financial stake in publicising Shinn. This places both their reliability and independence at issue. They would be suitable for filling in uncontroversial details, but would appear to be grossly insufficient for establishing notability. The number of wikipedia articles needing major rewriting far exceeds what I have the time to do anything about, and most of them are on subjects I have limited access to sources on. Therefore I rewrite what I can and prune the rest down to what can be substantiated (in terms of verifiability & notability) on pre-existing sources. HrafnTalkStalk 07:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're in the same boat info access-wise. I agree. And we must just chip away. The c-quotes are OTT and the whole thing needs to be ... well, as you know... including an encyclopedic tone. (And all that white space - erghn.) That's why I'm careful not to clonk people that go to some trouble to bring an article into the real world (and wikipedia was never meant to be a scholastic journal, but an information portal, non? and reliable, yes!) As for me, I come across an article and respond to the tags, hoping to be of some help to make a little difference for the better – is all. Personally, I was surprised that she was in the history of art on two fronts. I do wonder about the hiatus though – it's like two people. I'm now riddled with curiosity about the connection. She went from one sphere of breaking ground (as a woman artist, married and earning a living for her day) to an altogether "other" kind of wave. Wishing you well in your efforts, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion by Vandals

Vandals are repeatedly deleting this site, and I assume other sites related to New Thought. Just because I may not believe in something does not mean that everything about that subject is not factual.

Would these vandals also delete wikipedia entries on Mickey Mouse, Charles Darwin, Milton Friedman, Jesus Christ and Global Warming simply because they doubt some aspects about them?

There are important historic and cultural facts associated with many contentious issues. Deleting something because you don't like some part of it is fascist, and is similar to burning books.

Go and do something creative rather than destructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.25.66 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Find sources or it will remain a redirect. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration in violation of policy

  1. New sections on talkpages go at the bottom not the top.
  2. Calling other editors "vandals" is a gross' violation of WP:AGF.
  3. This article was redirected because it had no reliable sources and was thus in gross violation of WP:V and could provide no evidence of notability (both of which require reliable sources).

The reason why many New Thought articles have been drastically pruned and/or redirected is because they were likewise appallingly badly sourced. Most NT editors seem to be more interested in edit-warring over whether its constituent parts are 'churches' or 'denominations' and over whether they belong in 'Christian' categories than in actually finding sources for them. My finally words to you are (per WP:PROVEIT):
Source it or lose it! HrafnTalkStalk 10:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would further suggest our anonymous friend read #Notability & sources above, which explains all this in considerably more detail. HrafnTalkStalk 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are Haanel & Butler-Bowdon WP:RSs for biographical information?

Neither author is a professional biographer or historian. Neither would appear to be in a position to do much more than repeat what is 'common knowledge' about Shinn. Both books are focused on the 'inspirational' rather than the factual, so there's no reason to believe that the biographical information contained in them is likely to be subjected to rigorous fact-checking. HrafnTalkStalk 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What we should be looking for as reliable sources to provide the 'backbone' of the article and establish notability is:

  • (ideally) a well-written, well-researched biography of the subject;
  • (failing that) "significant coverage" in well-written, well-researched historical works on the topics that the article-subject is claimed to be notable for -- in Shinn's case this would be histories of the New Thought movement and the Cornish Colony. (An example of this is the extensive information on George McCready Price found in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, that forms the basis for the article on him.) If such histories don't exist, or don't mention (or only mention in passing) the article-subject, then we have to question whether the article-subject is notable;
  • (failing even that) a solid biographical article in a reputable publication.

HrafnTalkStalk 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Someone wanted a reference that Ms Shinn was a healer. I added a reference to Barnes & Noble that refers to "her great work of healing . . .". Surely this documents it sufficiently to support describing Ms Shinn as a "healer". Madman (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time read the bloody policy! A comnercial blurb advertising her book for sale is not a reliable source! Not only is this a clear violation of WP:RS, it is also a violation of WP:PEACOCK. HrafnTalkStalk

[edit] May 2008

copied from Julia Rossi talk page
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Florence Scovel Shinn, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal. Your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. The article contains exactly five citation -- two of which have been tagged as unreliable -- they are to biographical info given by fellow inspirational writers, not to serious biographical sources, and one is a bare mention of her by a third inspirational author. The Refimprove-template was thus valid. HrafnTalkStalk 03:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason is in the edit summary/edit text as follows: <!-- rem tag - enough citations for any article--> Apols to whoever couldn't see them, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note the template said "valid reason" -- and my above explanation of the templating rebutted your claim that there are "enough citations for any article". HrafnTalkStalk 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As I posted at AfD, here's her NYT obit[2]. Should be enough to establish notability, so I'm taking the notability template off. Some plutocratic admirer should take a look at it.John Z (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is strange that everybody seems far more interested in sources-to-remove-tags than in sources-to-reference-the-article. Were it not for the exhortation to assume good faith, I might read something into that. A NYT obit is certainly a significant source, and should be used to provide the skeleton of article, instead of the 'what fellow inspirational had heard about her' sources that currently serves this role. HrafnTalkStalk 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
In my case, it is sheer laziness and the desire to get some sleep, together with the desire to not part with $4 unless it is about an article I am really interested in. The great thing about wikipedia is how lazy people can desultorily collaborate. Add an obscure ref to an article, come back in a year or two, and someone will have actually used it. :-)John Z (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that you referenced it 'cite unseeen' (pun intended), it is conceivable (if highly improbable) that her obituary simply said "she died". ;) A more likely outcome is that people will see the obscure, relatively inaccessible & impressive-looking ref & decide that the article is (superficially) well-referenced and not bother doing anything further to improve the citations. HrafnTalkStalk 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)