Talk:Edwin A. Keeble

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

Warfield and Keeble and the partnership[edit]

There is not just one way to do this. The question is where to cover the firm Warfield & Keeble and where to cover Warfield, in separate articles or combined together with coverage of Keeble who has gotten this article, first. There are now a number of works listed which are credited to the firm, and we might not ever know which partner was more associated with.

Info from the Richard E. Martin House NRHP document:

In business from 1929 to 1944, Warfield & Keeble designed numerous residential dwellings in the Nashville area. Firm partner Edwin Keeble was a resident of Forest Hills and his work is especially prevalent in the community. 3 Keeble designed dwellings in a variety of styles and was particularly adept with the Tudor Revival style.

One option is to move this article to Warfield & Keeble (currently a redlink) and develop all together, with bio sections on each of them separately.

Another is to redirect Warfield & Keeble to this article or to a new Warfield article. The fact that Warfield is listed first in the partnership name gives a nudge towards covering the firm in the Warfield article, if choosing.

I would lean towards one big article, as I don't immediately see any complications about Keeble later partnering with anyone else or whatever. But I am not the one doing the work here, I am happy to go along with a different decision. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The discussion of works in a single joint article Warfield & Keeble could logically have subsections on Warfield before the partnership, Keeble before the partnership, the partnership, then either of them post-partnership if either of them continued later. I have seen this done. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, works by Francis Warfield/Francis B. Warfield/Francis Boddie Warfield include (from NRIS2010a database), with single credit:

And with joint credit:

--Doncram (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Warfield should have his own article too, and both articles will have some overlapping content (about the buildings they designed together). But they will both have content that's different too.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to create an article about the firm.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this says he was a Belle Meade resident.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. Presumably Keeble could have been resident of Belle Meade during one period and of Forest Hills during another. --Doncram (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eagledj: This reads, "In 1936 Keeble completed his own home in Belle Meade, "Keeble Heights," in the Classical Revival style.".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s, You are correct above in saying what the source said, but I believe the source is not correct there. I tracked down Mr. Keeble's son Peter who was kind enough to return my phone call. He gave me valuable feedback on the article. One of the things that drew his ire was "Keeble Heights". He said no one in the family ever used that term for their home and that his father would most certainly find it objectionable, and asked that we take it out. I realize WP:OR and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, but I'm beginning to realize that these NRHP forms may not be reliable sources and must be rigorously verified. He also confirmed that "Belle Meade" was incorrect and it should read "Forest Hills". For now, I'm going to remove that ref. What do you want me to do here? --Eagledj (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doncram: Second opinion please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was pinged. My thoughts:
  • I am grateful every day that there are usually-great National Register documents available. However the documents and corresponding NRIS database often do have errors; when we become aware of them we do not want to repeat the errors. Sometimes sources conflict and we don't know what is correct, so state both sides with their sources. But if we know something is wrong we should not state it in an article. Noting inaccuracies in the Wikipedia-space notes pages like wp:NRIS info issues TN (which report on lots of known errors) can help us be organized, and can help towards getting errors fixed at the state level and/or the National Park Service eventually
  • In cases like here, where a local person or relative has expertise / knowledge which is not reflected in any available published, citable source, I will believe them, and want for the article to report nothing inaccurate.
  • The choices include:
  • 1 say nothing about a given issue, just avoiding saying anything untrue
  • 2 try harder to get a citable source that would be verifiable. Perhaps there is a family history document, currently unpublished, which could be cited. Ideally it could be "published" perhaps, by donation to the local library which would make it available via their local history clippings files. Could a file of related news clippings, copies of letters or family stuff, etc. be donated>? Or the local expert could write a column or article for a local newspaper or local history newsletter which can then be cited. Or the local expert could write a blog post or otherwise put it onto the internet themselves. Perhaps in a geneology website / discussion forum. It doesn't have to be an academic-style article, just the local expert's thoughts. Any of these ways it can be "verified" well enough that they said what they said, and we can cite that as "According to ... the house was known as ... " Basically, write out what you need to get into the Wikipedia article and "publish" it anywhere else, then it can be stated in Wikipedia with reference to that. Could Peter be willing to donate/publish any existing family history document or to write up a page or two or three of notes?
  • This is in effect finding or creating a primary source. We prefer secondary or tertiary sources in general, but (per wp:PRIMARY?) we can use primary sources with care.
  • Oh, is there anything which can be addressed by a photograph? We have a super exception to "no original research" rule in that we can contribute our own photos of anything to Commons and use the photos directly plus basic observations on what the photos say. Is there a placard at the house which displays what is needed to be conveyed? Could Peter take a pic of that and contribute it to Commons. We often use photos to support unfortunate statements like "the historic log cabin is no longer at the site", but they can convey additional/new information about a historic site, too. It would be extremely relevant to add a pic of the architect's plans for the house, say.
  • 3 say something with a footnote/source like "per personal communication from ..." (which is a source, just not generally verifiable by others later, but if it is a non-controversial assertion I think it is fine in historic site articles)
  • 4 say something without any stated source (if the assertion is not controversial, it can just live on, unsupported)
  • 5 say it but add a template:Citation needed tag (to me this seems a bit unfriendly to readers and editors, but can be appropriate if it might possibly alert some other local historian or whomever who might in the future possibly find and add a source)
With options 3, 4, 5 it is possible that other Wikipedia editors will dislike what is done and edit it out, but for non-controversial historic site topics this happens pretty rarely. Is 2 possible? If not, then I prefer 3. :) --Doncram (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram and Zigzig20s--Thanks for the suggestions to solve this conundrum. The statement is, "In 1936 Keeble completed his own home in Belle Meade, 'Keeble Heights,' in the Classical Revival style." The sentence contains basically four elements: two of them, I believe to be incorrect. "Belle Meade" and "Keeble Heights are incorrect. I have evidence that "Belle Meade" is wrong from a RS (a Wedding announcement); The subject's son objects to and discounts "Keeble Heights"; I can prove "1936" is correct by a reliable secondary source. So that leaves element No. four, "Classical Revival style" as presumed correct and useable. What if citation number targets the that one element, i.e., appears adjacent to it? Does it violate Wiki principles to "cherry pick" by selectively picking a series of facts to verify only one of them? Would a reviewer would flag that in a GA review? If "yes", then this leads me to choice "*1 say nothing about a given issue, just avoiding saying anything untrue". PS, I found nothing in wp:NRIS info issues TN that was quite like this problem.--Best--Eagledj (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would ignore this if we know he did not live in Belle Meade. We have another RS for Forest Hills, don't we?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created Lebanon Woolen Mills. I don't think it was designed by Keeble--just Warfield.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I listed the Woolen Mills in the Keeble article as one of Warfield's "solo works".--Eagledj (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keeble article preeminent[edit]

If I may put in my 2 cents, I would keep the Keeble article as preeminent. Give Warfield his props within the article, same with the W-K firm. My impression, and it's just an impression, is that Keeble had significantly greater acclaim. I've just searched Warfield, and there are very few refs for him, and no one as yet has created a parallel Warfield article, so we don't really have a pressing merge dilemma here. -- Eagledj (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a Keeble""[edit]

A belated second opinion on the language around "it's a Keeble". I personally found it fine, especially as it was sourced. It's similar to a situation we have in England about the houses built pre-war by Walter George Tarrant on the private estates of St Georges Hill and Wentworth. Tarrant's mock-Tudor style is still well-regarded and the up-market estate agents that sell these, very expensive, homes often reference the fact that "it's a Tarrant" as a selling point. And it has an academic pedigree, not just a marketing one, [1]. Interestingly, the style of the Dr. Cleo Miller House is actually quite Tarrant'ish. But if everyone's happy with the revised wording, that's fine KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edwin_A._Keeble&oldid=1196513223"