Talk:Daniel Burnham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source for famous Burnham quote "Make no small plans"[edit]

I was surprised by the text in the current Daniel Burnham article (9-21-06) that the famous quote was not directly attributable to him. I contacted the reference librarian at the Chicago Public Library, and they provided the complete quote and citation.

If someone can add this to the article, that would be great:

In the Charles Moore (1855-1942) biography of Daniel Burnham and the Charles Henry Wacker (1856-1929 ) newspaper interview identified below, Daniel Burnham is directly quoted as saying:

"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty."

The MacMillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases attributes the quote to Daniel Burnham and cites the Wacker interview.

Sources: Abbot, Willis J. "How Chicago Is Making Its Vision of Civic Splendor a Reality Is Told by Man Who Led in Project That Proves Economic Value of 'Mere Beauty' : Story of Commerical City's Education in Aesthetics Recited by Charles H. Wacker : Chicago Plan Commission's Former Head Shows How Transformation Has Been Wrought - Ideal Improvements, Once Pictured, Became Visible Goals of Community Endeavo - Were Even Taught In Schools." Christian Science Monitor, 18 January 1927; page 8.

Moore, Charles. "Daniel H. Burnham, Architect, Planner of Cities." Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1921; Volume 2; Chapter XXV "Closing in 1911-1912;" Page 1921.

Stevenson, Burton Egber. "MacMillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases." New York, Macmillan 1948; Page 1806. RCDiamond 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather amazing that this mistake ("no evidence") could be left in for so long. I'll put both sources in as references. It's also rather puzzling as people tend to make up short quotes, but this one is rather long. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filene's building[edit]

Press reports about the impending redevelopment of the Filene's flagship store in Downtown Crossing, Boston, describe the main 1912 structure as Burnham's "last major commission". Can anyone confirm this? If so, it should probably be added to the list of notable buildings, as it's on the National Register. 121a0012 04:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Daniel Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

The reason for placing the images directly next to rather then directly underneath the sections they are connected to is quite simple: it looks better that way, in the case of the "Death" image, and it takes up less space in the subsequent section in the case of the memorial image. The purpose of having images positioned in close relationship to the sections they relate to is to assure that, whenever possible (physical space does not always allow it) the image and the information can be read by the reader at the same time. However, it is not at all unusual in publishing that images are not physically connected to the information that support them. Think of almost all books, for instance, in which images are collected together in groups in the center of the book, or magazines, where images may appear on the page before the information or the one after the information, because of restrictions in the layout caused by advertising, etc. Many print magazines continue their text in the "back of the book" (i.e. the latter pages of the magazine), and images connected to this text may be presented on pages far removed from that information.

Needless to say, an online document does not present as many restrictions as a printed one, but there are still concerns which pop up which make shoving an image directly under a section header less desirable than putting it to the side of the section header. This is the reason that MOS is a guidleine and not a mandatory policy, to allow us as editors to make those editorial choices balancing visual integrity with the presentation of information. When one enforces MOS as if it was a mandatory policy -- an action which, BTW, has been ruled as unwarranted by ArbCom on several occasions -- one in effect makes the guideline a de facto policy, without ever going through the community approval process required to do so. This is thus a "back-door" to making MOS mandatory, a result which is expressly not what MOS is meant to be.

Finally, their opinions on this article's layout would be easier to take if either of the two editors attempt to enforce hardcore MOS line had ever edited this article before, which is not the case. Reywas92 came here because he saw my edits to the article on my contributions page, and SMcCandlish came here because Reywas92, in effect, canvassed help on a MOS talk page. That's not the way things work here, and both need to stop this behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely invalid reasoning, and this article's talk page is not the place for a big emotive user essay about your generalized layout hypotheses. WP has never, for one second, since this site opened accepted your argument that editors cannot apply a guideline or policy to an article's content unless they have previously become long-term editors of the article. Your opinion that it looks better your way is irrelevant; other editors disagree, and we have guidelines against doing it that way because so many of them agree it does not look better, it causes accessibility problems, it divorces the images from text related to them, and it causes technical layout problems covered at WP:SANDWICHING. Since you've been edit-warring to get your way about this, against multiple editors and across multiple articles, since at least 2015, and continued to do so after a discussion at WT:MOS concluded with zero respondents agreeing with your layout views or your WP:IAR "rationale", and you were warned this would happen if the edit-warring continued, I'm simply going to seek an image-placement topic ban at WP:ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Burnham&oldid=1194727872"