Talk:Frank Lloyd Wright
Frank Lloyd Wright was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Lloyd Wright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Charles Rennie Mackintosh
editWas Frank Lloyd Wright influenced by Charles Rennie Mackintosh when Wright visited Europe? The similarities are striking. See some comparisons here ---> http://www.screencast.com/users/Tommm3/folders/Default/media/f7481fc8-696d-4e1b-adb5-db8d367a3c70
Middle Name and Birthdate Controversies
editFor middle name see discussion in archive 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Lloyd_Wright/Archive_1
According to FLW himself, which I have good reasons to believe is correct, he was born in 1869.
Numerous sources including census records confirm that he was born in 1867, What sources do you have? And please sign your posts with four tildes. Dktrfz (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Brendan Gill's nonsense about 'Franklin Lincoln Wright' has cropped up again. Two of the references shown quote Gill. Gill's assertion has no reference, and census records only show 'Frank Lloyd Wright' There is no reference from any source about this story that was published before Gill's book. For middle name see discussion in archive 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Lloyd_Wright/Archive_165.128.55.7 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that this has been such a contentious issue when I made my edit. As far as I can find, there have been no scholarly refutations of Gill's claim; is that correct? And although the claim may or may not have originated with Gill, neither of the two sources I added directly reference Gill, as Cronon references Meryle Secrest's biography, and Huxtable says that the name change is indicated in "family records". This particularly seems significant, and was what provoked my edit. I've now read through the archived discussion, and the absences that it mentions seem hardly conclusive; either way, the consensus among reliable secondary sources that I've seen is that this name change did occur. I'll tag you Dktrfz as you seem to be somewhat involved with the discussion, and try to ping the IP editor too. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Ask yourself this: was it Frank Lincoln Wright or was it Franklin Lincoln Wright? Gill offers both on the page referenced. If he had access to "family records" he would know which one it was, and would have put it in his references. He cannot have it both ways! Furthermore, there is no reference to either name before Gill's biography was published in 1987. If there was even one, there would be no controversy. Gill was a successful feature story writer for The New Yorker magazine but not a very good biographer—there are numerous errors in Many Masks and, according to Taliesin insiders, Gill's claim to be a personal friend of Wright and Wright's family is sketchy at best. 65.128.55.7 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- This all seems to me to be original research. Are there any reliable secondary sources that dispute this claim of Gill's? All I can find is authors that accept that Wright was born with the middle name "Lincoln". The article should reflect the consensus among secondary scholarly sources, and in my opinion, it currently does not. Swadge2 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, ask yourself this: was it Frank Lincoln Wright or was it Franklin Lincoln Wright? Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. 65.128.61.6 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have carefully read pages 25-26 in Gill's Many Masks, and nowhere does Gill say that family records indicate the name "Franklin". He simply speculates that the infant may have been christened Franklin after the president, and makes clear that he has no evidence for this suggestion. It's just the middle name claim for which he cites "at least two Wright family documents". I therefore think that this Frank/Franklin issue really does not undermine Gill in the way that you make out. In any case, this debate is beside the point; per WP:RS, what matters is reliable secondary sources, and the consensus among them is that Wright had the middle name "Lincoln" before Lloyd. I don't understand what your mention of vague attribution is intended to address, would you mind being more specific? Swadge2 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
As the article stands it states there is a controversy about his birth name. You can delete it if you like, but to ignore the controversy is your opinion. The fact remains that there is no documented evidence of Lincoln as a middle name and there was no reference to it all before Gill's bio. There is a US Census document from 1880, however, listing his name as Frank Loyd(sic) Wright. All of the reliable secondary resources based their information on Gill's conjectures.
Once again: As the article stands it states there is a controversy about his birth name.
Why do you think that fact should be ignored?65.128.61.6 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not so much that I think that this controversy should be ignored, but rather that I don't think that it exists beyond this talk page. However, I am a relatively inexperienced editor, and while we seem to have covered some ground with this discussion, I think a third opinion might be helpful. I'm therefore going to list this matter at WP:3. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10746&hilit=lincoln174.20.74.204 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that link, really interesting stuff. Of course that forum can't be cited, but I think I've now got a better understanding of your position, having browsed through the discussion there. Seeing all the research they've done into this hasn't quite persuaded me that Gill made this all up, but my previous surety that this Lincoln/Lloyd change occurred is no more. I still think the article should say that later authors have followed Gill's position, but I think just as much that it's very fair to point out that no supporting evidence has been found. From that thread I also found Paul Hendrickson's Plagued by Fire in which he describes the Lincoln/Lloyd issue with a rather sceptical "supposed", seems worth mentioning.
- From my perspective, this issue is more or less resolved. The edits I would now propose are a readdition of the sources I initially added just for completeness' sake, while keeping something to say that no evidence has been produced to support the name change. How does that sound to you? Best regards, Swadge2 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think text indicating that a biographer made this allegation should be included, but it should be described as a claim made by the biographer. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone.
This dilemma is somewhat unique in that there has been so much written about Wright over the last 120+ years (including a ton of misinformation from Wright himself) that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Further complicating things is that Brendan Gill was an accomplished feature writer at The New Yorker (where he had fact-checkers carefully vetting his articles) but not a scholarly biographer. Many Masks (the title's premise reflects Gill's bias perfectly) had an enormous impact on Wright's legacy which has shaped it ever since. That said, even a cursory look at Gill's career shows that he relished dishing dirt on his subjects. Obviously, it is beyond the scope of any Wikipedia article to completely validate every source but care should be taken and legitimate questions about the integrity of questionable information should be at least acknowledged. The Hendrickson book, which only covers a few notable instances of Wright’s life, is a good example of a proper biography, with diligent research supported by detailed references. 174.20.74.204 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
When did Wright marry Catherine Tobin?
editWhile their marriage is recorded in the infobox, the only mention of events regarding Tobin are to say she did not grant Wright a divorce at first but later did. When/where they were married, the surrounding circumstances, etc. are not mentioned. Also, the article calls Catherine Tobin "Kitty" before making a connection between the two names. Quirk4 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
On the Frank Lloyd wright page, I think the Pope-Leighey house is missing
editI don't know I just got into architecture and I love that house and I saw it missing when researching wright ChristopherLong22 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- it is in the buildings section near the bottom of the page Dktrfz (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:American Christian pacisfists
editCategory says American Christian pacfists, but the article says nothing about this. Sources say he was a ratonalist humanist in the Unitarian tradition, while others describe him as a pantheist or even an atheist. It isn't all that clear which is true. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)