Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn

Notability of Lewis Josselyn

Please be aware that a previous article about Lewis Josselyn was nominated for deletion in September 2023 here. Since then, a new version has been created to address the concerns raised during that discussion. The updated version now meets the criteria outlined in WP:BASIC, providing in-depth coverage from multiple published secondary sources, WP:ANYBIO, recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in Western United States, and aligns with WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines, as Josselyn has played a significant role in creating a collective body of work. Additionally, his work has been included in the permanent collections of several renowned galleries and museums.

Secondary reliable sources include:

• Jennie V. Cannon. "Lewis Josselyn (1883-1964)" (PDF). Traditional Fine Arts Organization: Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists. p. 460. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
• Hiller, Peter (April 20, 2021). The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith. pp. viii, xi, 144, 186, 193–196, 203, 294, 305. ISBN 978-0-692-05342-3. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
• "Back to the Drawing Board with Artist Jo Mora" (PDF). Monterey History and Art Association. LII (3). Monterey, California. 2003. Retrieved 2023-11-13..

His work is represented within the permanent collections of several notable museums:

• San Francisco Maritime Museum
• Monterey Museum of Art
• Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History
• Art, Design & Architecture Museum

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Biography		The source is a noted book by a well-known author, Jennie V. Cannon, with a book review here. Cannon was an American artist who spent most of her career in California and gained national recognition.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
Book		The source is a noted book by a author, Peter Hiller, with book review here, which won the 2022 Will Rogers Medallian Award Hiller is an artist and retired arts teacher, and in the community he is known as a consummate expert on Jo Mora (1876-1947).	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Museum		The source is for a noted museum, the Monterey Museum of Art in northern California.	The source discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
Collection		The source is for a noted historical society, the Monterey County Historical Society in Salinas, California that includes a biography and a Josselyn Collection of 1,337 photographs.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Body Of Work		The source is for a noted library, the Calisphere at the University of California that includes 278 online photographs by Josselyn.	The source represents a body of work	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Greg Henderson (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

@Netherzone: How accurate is the above assessment? I know you've frequently and competently worked with these source assessment tables in deletion/notability discussions. My on-wiki time is limited right now and you're much faster at analyzing sources than I am. Left guide (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The source table is not neutral and shows a lack of understanding of source assessment. It should be disregarded. Netherzone (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A cursory look at the source assessment table shows that it suffers from the same kind of puffery that the article does - it in no way appears neutral. Let me start with this issue, noting that it doesn't even begin to get to the real questions of notability:

• Source 1: Cannon is called a "well known author". The wikipedia article on Cannon says she was an artist, there is nothing in the article text about her being an author at all, let alone a well known one. Her book is called a "noted book". The link to is a pdf which doesn't give title or publication details, but is listed in the draft article footnotes as "Traditional Fine Arts Organization: Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists" and has a two paragraph entry on Josselyn.
• Source 2: Hiller is called a "noted author". He does not have a wikipedia article, but is an art curator who has written this book on the subject he curates on, with one sponsored review provided. It did not win "the 2022 Will Rogers Medallian Award", it received Bronze in one category of that award, and that award is a contest for which authors submit an entry fee.
• Source 3: The assessment says "The source discusses the subject directly and in detail". It is a single photograph with the name of the photographer attached, nothing more.
• Source 4: I'm not sure what makes a historical society "noted", but no evidence is provided for this assessment. Again, the source provided does not "discuss the subject directly and in detail" - it is an article directly discussing Pat Hathaway that mentions receiving photos from Josselyn's widow and then provides a single paragraph on Josselyn giving a one sentence list of the subjects he took photos of.

Greghenderson2006 the fact that you do not know how to write neutrally and without puffery even when you are writing a supposed source assessment table is concerning. Melcous (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note the following replies to your comments:

• Source 1: I've added the author's name: Jennie V. Cannon. The table of contents is here. Lewis Josselyn is listed in the Appendix 7 - Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists with the full biography here. The biography includes 19 source citations.
• Source 2: I've changed it to "Bronze" award. I did not list all the awards. The book also won the " PubWest 2021 Book Design Award: GOLD Winner" and the " 2021 Foreword Indies, Honorable Mention"
• Source 3: The Monterey Museum of Art has a page dedicated to Lewis Josselyn, which does not require a volume of words but rather the quality of the words, e.g. coverage which demonstrates his work is within the permanent collection of a museum that describes Lewis Josselyn with details of his work.
• Source 4: The Monterey County Historical Society has been noted in sources as a major source for historical records. The Monterey County Historical Society acquired the Josselyn Collection and is represented on the Wikipedia page Jose Eusebio Boronda Adobe. I've update the URL to a new page that provides multiple setences, which includes a bio for Josselyn, birth/death dates, and having over 3,800 images by Josselyn.

Greg Henderson (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, including authors, the people or places he photographed, photo credits, famous people he hung out with, etc. The fact that an author's book won a design award, or that another author is notable does NOT contribute to Josselyn's notability - that's WP:COATRACKing, WP:MASKing, and WP:FLUFF. Also see WP:REFBOMB. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The awards point to the merit of the author, Peter Hiller, and the book that was used as secondary source, which discusses the subject Draft:Lewis Josselyn. The citation includes direct passages from the book that speak on how Lewis Josselyn contributed, via his photographs and friendship, to the preservation of Jo Mora's works. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on now, Greg, let's get real. The book is about Jo Mora, NOT about Josselyn. It mentions Josselyn because he was a close personal friend of Mora who happened to make numerous photos of Mora and his artworks and who happened to be a photographer. Josselyn does not inherit notability from Mora, nor do a bunch of photo credits and a small amount of text on Josselyn confer notability. Of the 300-some pages in this book, it's quite clear the book is about Mora, not Josselyn. This is coat-racking, masking and fluff. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a secondary source that talks about Josselyn. The citations in the Josselyn draft speak to specific pages in the book that mention Josselyn that show how he contributed to preserving the history of Mora's work. Because Josselyn's photographs have been achieved, we can now enjoy Mora's work as wll as other California landmarks. Photographers soemtimes don't get enough credit for what they do. The article is an attempt to put credit where credit is due. Instead of knocking it down, lets help make the article the best it can be. I don't mind taking out sections or words you don't like. The essence and citations speak to the encyclopedic value of documenting this early American photographer. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A source about another person (Jo Mora) that "talks about" Josselyn does not constitute significant coverage. Nor are photo credits significant coverage. Josselyn was simply doing his job as a photographer; having an active career or even a successful career is NOT the same as notability. You are confusing the two. It is not the job of the encyclopedia to bolster up a photographer's "credit for what they do." That would be using the encyclopedia for promotion. Just because he was an active photographer does not mean he was a notable photographer.

His work is held in the collection of the Maritime museum because the topic/subject of the photograph is relevant and of interest to the focus of the museum. Josselyn is not in the collection because he took the photo, his photo is in the museum because it is a picture of lighthouse at the ocean, which is a subject related to maritime activity. Again, he was simply doing his job documenting the lighthouse.

Just because he has a short bio on the website Traditional Fine Arts Organization is not the same as having a bio in a Dictionary of National or International biographies. TFAOI is like having an entry in Who's Who. It does not confer notability.

Just because his widow donated his photos and negatives to the archivist Pat Hathaway, whose collection was then given to the Monterey Museum's archives does not confer notability.

He created a "body of work" just like hundreds of thousands of other commercial photographers with an active business. Simply doing his job well does not confer notability. It was not a notable body of work, if it were it would have been written about extensively in the art historical literature, academic journals and photo/art history books. It has not. Netherzone (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we have a disagreement on the Wikipedia guidelines.

• WP:BASIC - Josselyn is notable because he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, e.g. books, magazines, and newspapers written by authors that are indpendent of the subject.
• WP:PHOTOGRAPHER - collective body of work - Josselyn's body of work is held in several libraries, historical societies, and private collections
• WP:PHOTOGRAPHER - the permanent collections of several museums, e.g. San Francisco Maritime Museum, Art, Design & Architecture Museum, Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, and the Monterey Museum of Art.
• To say that he was "just doing his job" is an underestimated his value. It is like saying Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel because he was just doing his job. You are also confused on the picture of lighthouse. It is from the Monterey Museum of Art not the San Francisco Maritime Museum. It was a gift to the museum from Jehanne B. Williamson.
• If Wikipedia is an encylopedia that provides summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular filed, then I think Draft:Lewis Josselyn falls into this category. Not only does he meet the Wikipeida quidelines, he is worthy of notice as he was the official photographer for the Forest Theater. Josselyn provides valuable insight, for historians and students, into the field of early black and white glass plate photography for the American West.

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Just beginning to look into this excessively ref-bombed draft, I've already found two sources that were misrepresented. The claim that he created the theory of "painting with light" is false. It was invented in the 1880s and used by such notable photographers as Étienne-Jules Marey and others. One of the reviewers also points out that the source states that someone named "Mr. Kuster" "had already been talking about the "to paint with light" concept for some time, so it does not support (and in fact contradicts) the claim that Josselyn "developed" the idea or that it was "new".

Another claim, that is sourced to Sunset Magazine states that his work was the "subject in numerous articles across publications such as the Sunset Magazine." Yet when I look at that source, what I see are photo credits for the use of some of his pictures, not a feature article on the subject themself. The images were used as photographic illustrations for an article.

This sort of inflation of sources has been a pattern with the article creator, and improper sourcing is one of the reasons why they are blocked. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The items above have been addressed in the latest draft. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of "bloat": Daisy Bostick's publication, Carmel at Work and Play, highlights notable photographers from the Monterey Peninsula. According to Bostick "Beautiful photography of the kind which requires both the skill of the craftsman, and the soul of the artist is well represented in Carmel by the work of Lewis Josselyn." Bostick features numerous images by Josselyn, including captures of the Pine Inn, Carmel Highlands... The book has numerous photo captions, "by L. Josselyn" but only contains part of one single sentence about his work and the quote in the draft leaves out the fact that she was talking about several other photographers as well. The above makes it sound like the book "features" Josselyn, when in fact he is not the focus of the book, the things he and other photographers photographed were the features - things like buildings, businesses, politicians and other notables, but it is not about Josselyn. Since only a part of one sentence mentioned Josselyn directly, this seems like UNDUE weight is being given. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The item above have been addressed in the latest draft. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm continuing to spot check the lead section and yet another bloated statement is: Josselyn assembled a substantial collection, comprising over 3,800 of his photographs and negatives. Previously housed in the Pat Hathaway Collection, these materials are now preserved and cataloged at the Monterey County Historical Society in Salinas, California. The fact of the matter is that his widow donated the photos to an archivist named Pat Hathaway, who then turned them over to the historical society. Just about anyone can donate artwork, it's different than being "collected." On a related note, the section, "Public collections" is erroneously named, as several of these are in fact private, non-notable collections, or libraries, not notable art museums or national galleries per NARTIST criteria. Just because something is searchable online does not make it a "Public collection". Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And then there's stuff like this: people and places like, Josephine Guilbert in 1916 at the cottage she built herself in Carmel., "sourced" to...some random post from Flickr ([1]). Greghenderson2006, if after all the warnings you've gotten for the misuse of sources and use of unreliable ones you're still doing things like these, I have serious doubts as to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:,

I believe this version of draft is written based on Greg's original off-wiki copy rather than the version right before it was deleted. By the way, the only reason I pinged you is because you were the closing admin and I wanted to request comparison against the deleted version and new version. Just making it clear in case someone felt I was canvassing a certain reviewer. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The items above have been addressed in the latest draft. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Another misrepresented source

The lead states that he is in the collection of the ICP International Center of Photography in NYC, yet when I click on the citation it takes me to the Center for Creative Photography at Arizona State University. And all that shows is his name, meaning he is a photographer - it's a name check. It is not a record of him having work in their permanent collection. It's totally unclear whether the CCP has a book or newspaper in their library where his is simply mentioned in a photo-credit, or some other type of document like a letter, or bit of ephemera, or if they own his photograph(s). One cannot just assume if his name shows up on a Google search that he is in their permanent collection. Additionally, the ICP is a much more prestigious institution than the CCP, so it's also clearly puffery and misrepresentation.

I haven't yet checked the other collections in the lead in detail, but it is alarming to find so many citation irregularities. Especially after the block for bad sourcing and having received so many warnings over the years. You have been asked time and again to please slow down, and double check your work, yet you continue steam-rolling AfC and NPP with draft after draft, rather than fixing errors in your own articles, and instead relying on unpaid volunteers to do your clean up for you. I have concerns about your competency, which is requirement. Sigh.... Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have contact CCP and updated the citation to say that "Photographs by Josselyn are available by request." They were kind enough to send me two images: Untitled, [Carmel Mission, viewed through tranquera], 1928, and Yankee Point Looking South, Pt. Sur in the Background, 1931.

I have also double-checked other collections and have added notations that some of these images are available by request. I've contact each collection and they have been able to forward the photographs to me. I have placed some of these in the Category:Photographs by Lewis Josselyn.

I assure you that my competency is evident in the long hours of research I have done to demonstrate that Lewis Josselyn is a notable and prolific photographer that has left an important archive of photographs that document early California and its people. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What you assure means nothing if it can not be substantiated with WP:RS. You have been here long enough to know this. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My goal is to cleanup any unreliable sources. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been using unreliable sources to start with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Another fake source: This morning I randomly clicked on the reference for this sentence: In April 1926, Josselyn conducted a photographic survey of the Mojave Desert and Death Valley in the Southwestern United States.[2] The citation solely verifies one thing, that Josselyn played in a local community baseball game. It contains absolutely nothing about him "conducting a photographic survey of the Mojave Desert and Death Valley." Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: It is not fake. You did not look at the page number. Go to page 14 and it says: "Lewis Josselyn is home from Mojave and Death Valley with a sheaf of splendid photographs and sketches. He was away for two weeks."

I have revised the URL to this to be more generic here, since the URL that was provided took you to the wrong page number. I appreciate what you are trying to do here. Please let me know if you find any other irregularities since I want this to be perfect before submitting it again. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

And another fake source: I just randomly clicked on another source to check against content, During his time in the army, Josselyn photographed the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. sourced to page 9 of this document:[3] which is a "Coastal Development Plan Permit Application", having to do with the development of the California Coast and absolutely nothing about Josselyn photographing WWI expeditionary forces. Netherzone (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading what is on page 9 of 18 in the document. It has a very good bio of Josselyn, and on page 9 it says: Lewis Josselyn became a well-known photographer for his landscape work in carmel, his photographs of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I, his documentation of restoration of the California Missions, and his photos of poet Robeinson Jeffers at Jeffer's home Tor House. It also provides the source that is from the Monterey Herald for March 16, 1964. Please let me know if this is sufficient to include in the article? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Work on something else. This individual is not notable. You made a bunch of citations to the "Pine Cone", but that's a hyper-local paper that seems to report every time a resident blows their nose. This is not a notable individual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I respect what you are saying. If I can show that he is notable based on WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines, would you be OK?

The article is trying to show that Josselyn played a major role in creating collective body of work that is available online, e.g. the Bancroft Library, California State Library, and California Digital Library. Additionally, his work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable libraries and museums, e.g. Monterey Museum of Art and the San Francisco Maritime Museum. He became popular at the local level but is known nationally, through his connection with artist Jo Mora, Robinson Jeffers, and his theater work with John Northern Hilliard and Maurice Browne and Ellen Van Volkenburg.

I think it is important to at least have a short biography of him on Wikipedia that can summarize his notable achievements. What do you think? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I already said what I think. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I am looking for the third time at Page 9 of this PDF and there is no mention of Josselyn. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The page number are a little odd. At the top of the page it has the title "History" and the second paragraph it says:

"Lewis Josselyn became a well-known photographer for his landscape work in Carmel, his photographs of the American Expeditionary Force ni World War I, his documentation of restoration of the California Missions, and his photos of poet Robinson Jeffers at Jeffers' home Tor House (Herald: March 16, 1964)."

At the bottom of the page it has page "8" with Exhibit E - 9 or 18.

Perhaps it would be more clear to just say page "8". Would you agree? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To build on what Seraphimblade said above, Greg, while this one is for another article, it is closely relevant. Why would you include inappropriate source like personal websites and include such citation in submitted draft? You know better. Given how much you've been told about such, It seems you're including along sites you want to include into article hoping it would pass thorugh. In that case, you said it wasn't needed to support the contents, so that raises even more question about why you even included it. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight. Including personal websites as sources was not intentional, and I understand the importance of using credible sources in our drafts. I will make sure to review and correct any inappropriate citations before the final submission. For the Draft:Miller-Melone Ranch article, I did not know it was a personal website until you pointed this out. The website includes a nice bio for Frank Delos Wolfe along with factual information. The source was included to provided a 2nd source for the topic per WP:CONTEXTFACTS. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

On the same topic of reliable sources, would you say this website is reliable? Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

For the Draft:Miller-Melone Ranch article, I did not know it was a personal website until you pointed this out. @Greghenderson2006: are you saying that after months of being questioned/coached on exactly this point, you still have no way of determining whether a source meets wikipedia's standards to be included yourself? Does this not give you pause in editing here? Melcous (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The way I determine if a source meets Wikipedia's standards is via the WP:RS guidelines. Takeaways include WP:CONTEXTFACTS. The Frank Delos Wolfe provides a good biography of the architect. However, I realize that the source is questionable and should not be used. It has been removed as a source from the article. Than you for your concern. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The draft contains excessive detail and a large amount of information that simply inflates his alleged importance. Wikipedia's purpose is NOT to merely provide information about every single photo or activity you can find or tidbit of information about a person.

Articles should summarize a selection of key works that are covered in depth by reliable sources. The rest is just filler and bloviation. Same goes for his various jobs and shows - only the most important should be summarized and every task and role he played is does not need to be extrapolated upon. The entire section on Joe Mora should be seriously trimmed, it's coatracking. The descriptions of things like passport photos he took or details or where a person is standing in an image or what they were wearing, or that he stamped the back of his images is bordering on the ridiculous. There are dozens of these types of passages that should be removed. Things sourced to a photo caption instead of an actual source should probably be removed - it's more appropriate that books, and newspapers or journals that cover the subject indepth as sources.

Overall it still reads very promotionally. He was not an important photographer, he was a commercial photographer doing his job. I suggest trimming down to about one-quarter of the current length so we can actually see what is there that might contribute to notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your comments. I have trimmed all of the text you mentioned specifically and will comb through the rest. While Josselyn may have been primarily a commercial photographer, there are notable aspects to his work worth considering. The section of "List of photographs" is an attempt to show key photographs and the collections they are in. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, is there a reliable source that actually calls various subjects he photographed "collections", such as The Joe Mora Collection, the Robinson Jeffers Collection", Big Sur Pictorial Collection? Netherzone (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. I looked at the photo captions and tried to clean them up a bit. Hope I got your point.

In terms of a reliable sources for the collections, here is what I found:

• Joe Mora Collection, on page 191 he talks about the Mora family collection.
• Robinson Jeffers Collection includes Josselyn's work
• Big Sur Pictorial Collection is covered by a collection of Josselyn photographs.

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

When someone or something is notable, people tend to "collect" or put together a series of things (whether writings, photos, etc) either about them or by them. What these three examples given above suggest to me is that there are "collections" about Joe Mora, by Robinson Jeffers, and about Saving the Redwoods. Within each of these collections about these (apparently/potentially) notable people and/or cause, there are some photos that were taken by Josselyn. All that suggests to me that Josselyn himself is not notable, and certainly these collections do nothing to demonstrate his notability. Again, they simply suggest he was someone who did a job of taking photos, and at times his photos were of things that were notable, not that he himself was notable as a photographer (unless you can point to "the Lewis Josselyn Collection"?) Melcous (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are some collections that use this name:

• Lewis Josselyn Collection at the Harrison Memorial Library, here on page 26
• Lewis Josselyn Collection at the California Views Historical Photos here on page 5 now part of the Lewis Josselyn Collection at the Monterey County Historical Society
• Some collection of photographs are not called by the name "Lewis Josselyn Collection" but his photographs are represented in their larger collections and represent a body of work, e.g. the San Francisco Maritime Museum has a collection of Josselyn's photographs.

These collections represent the notability guidelines for WP:PHOTOGRAPHER:

• • (3) collective body of work that have been the subject of multiple indepdent articles (these articles are represented in the article by its collection of photographs)
  • (4) His work is represented in the permanent collections of several notable museums (see above)

Greg Henderson (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source there regarding the "Harrison Memorial Library" is just a photo credit. Brief mentions like that don't establish notability. Rather, you'd be looking for material that is substantially or entirely about him, not that just mentions him in passing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The example provided was to illustrate that the Lewis Josselyn Collection is held at the Harrison Memorial Library. The material that is substantially about him is available here:

• Traditional Fine Arts Organization has a full biography on Josselyn along with citations.
• The Pat Hathaway Collection of Historical Photographs includes a biography of Josselyn and a collection of 1,337 photographs.
• The book The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West has several pages that speak about Josselyn's relationship with Mora and Josselyn's professional images that recorded Mora's artistic accomplishiments.

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

References

@Greghenderson2006:, so is your argument above for notability criteria (4) is that the Harrison Memorial Library and the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park are both notable museums? Come on. We've been here before (and two is not "several"). And for notability criteria (3) I'm not even sure what you're saying, that somehow collecting his photographs "represents" him being the subject of multiple independent articles? Your interpretation of notability criteria again strains credulity as is not aligned with what WP:PHOTOGRAPHER actually says, which is that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work in addition to their work being the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). How on earth are you suggesting that is met here? Melcous (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BASIC - see references above for Traditional Fine Arts Organization, which has a full biography on Josselyn along with citations. The Pat Hathaway Collection of Historical Photographs includes a biography of Josselyn and a collection of 1,337 photographs. The book The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West is a scondary source that talks about Josselyn's contributions.

WP:PHOTOGRAPHER - collective body of work - see Path Hathaway Collection citation above. Josselyn is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums - see San Francisco Maritime Museum and the Monterey Museum of Art citations.

Keep an open mind. The WP:NP guidelines are the accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I have 108 citations many from reliable secondary sources. I am happy to remove any of these citations that do not point toward notability. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have 108 citations many from reliable secondary sources..., Greg, do you realize that if several exceptional quality solid wood slabs are expected, no amount of saw dust will satisfy this requirement? This is essentially what ref bombing with a bunch of trivial coverage is attempting. Graywalls (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This "saw dust" is actually gold dust. His collection represents a body of work that is part of the the visual history of the past. The Josselyn collection represents some 5,000 5-by-7 negatives documenting Western United States. His work is held in the permanent collections of the San Francisco Maritime Museum, Monterey Museum of Art, Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, and the Art, Design & Architecture Museum. This article is worthy of notice and significant enough to deserve attention within Wikipedia notability guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The collections are misleading.The reason why he is in many of those collections is because the SUBJECTS of the photographs are relevant and of interest to the museum, not because they are collecting his work as an important photographer/artist. Also, again, donations of work (for example by his widow, etc.) is a very different process than an acquisition, where an institutional body such as an acquistions board or curatorial committe decide to purchase a work for the collection. There is so much puffery going on here it's overwhelming. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Let me know what to remove that is puffery and I can remove it. I want this article to pass and will update it based on what you think is best. I recently look at your article Daniel Reeves (artist) and notice it was brief but to the point. Thanks again. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to learn - for yourself - what constitutes puffery and promotional language, and learn reliable sources are and how to identify them. A team of volunteers have been teaching you for a very long time, but it does not seem to be sinking in. We are not here to hand-hold you or be your permanent mentors. You have been here for many years. longer than I, and should know this stuff by now. You are wasting a lot of editors time. Your approach seems to be to find ways to game the system and twist and reinterpret the WP guidelines to suit your own purposes. Acting clueless is not becoming, Greg. Sorry if this is so direct, but in my world direct communication is healthy communication, indirect communication is unhealthy. The article is bloated with puffery and peacockery. Tone it down and trim it radically, remove all the absurd detail and minutia, excessive examples and explanations, cut it back to the basics, way back. Try to write an encyclopedia article, not a tome. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it. You want me to remove unnecessary details, puffery, and the use of peacock words like, " landmark," "notable," and "pioneering." I'll work on this. Thanks. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AKON Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see topic above Notability of Lewis Josselyn. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Issues still unresolved

Please see my comment on the draft itself (in the AFCH comments section) regarding ongoing unresolved issues with the draft as of July 18, 2024 in relation to @Hoary's comments and the article creator @Greghenderson2006 comments added below the AFCH reviewer's comments. Also see above discussion for other editors and an admin's comments regarding problems with the draft. Current unresolved issues include: excessive and unnecessary detail and bloat, WP:COATRACK; tone that inflates/exaggerates his alleged importance WP:PUFFERY; bloating of minor details, too many irrelevant examples and an excessive amount of namedropping WP:INDISCRIMINATE; refbombing, WP:REFBOMB; tone seems to promote the subject rather than summarize the key events in their life WP:MASK and WP:PROMO; use of hyperlocal sourcing WP:UNDUE. The draft needs to be seriously trimmed. The over-sized images should be re-scaled to MOS, and there should not be so many redundant images of buildings, Jo Mora, the community theater, and the chair photo, these have no encyclopedic value. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for reviewing the Josselyn article. I have removed the itmes you mentioned and believe I have addressed Netherzone's comments. If there is anything else that needs to be removed or noted, please let me know. Notability has been established with reliable secondary sources included in the article. Josselyn is a well-known photographer on the Monterey Peninsula and his photographs can be found in many books, magazines, and articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)}}

@Netherzone: Thank you for reviewing the Josselyn article. I have removed the itmes you mentioned, e.g. (a) over-sized images, (b) redundant images of buildings, (c) images of Jo Mora, (d) images of the community theater (e) chair photo, bloating, unnecessary detail, and namedropping. If there are any other issues, please be specific, as the article has been trimmed to only have the details of Josselyn's life. I am happy to bring the article up to your standards! Greg Henderson (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The issues of bloat, puffery, coat racking, excessive/extraneous details, refbombing and namedropping have not been resolved. Several editors have suggested seriously trimming the article. I'd suggest pruning it to be about 1/4 of the current length focusing solely on a small handful of his key accomplishments before resubmitting, as has been suggested numerous times. Read through all the comments here. Netherzone (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: I appreciate you working with me on this. I means a lot to me. I have also reviewed some of the articles you have written and can see what you are talking about regarding keeping them brief. As result, I have removed additional content today to help trim the article, keeping the key roles and contributions Josselyn achieved as a photographer.

Below is a summary of what was cut: (a) honorary life member American Legion Post, (b) photograph the process of the World War I reconstruction, (c) the diorama with 64 sculptures of Spaniards and Indians... (d) photographs illustrated Daisy F. Bostick's book, (e) removed extra citations, (f) temoved Image restricted due to copyright. If there are any other specific items to remove or trim, please let me know.

Again, thanks for your comments and keep up the good job of creating those articles! Greg Henderson (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I just started to read thru the draft again, and am wondering which citation verifies the first sentence that he was specifically "known for his black-and-white photography of the American West." Which source says that or is it original research? Netherzone (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It was meant to be a general statement to reflect the kind of photographs he has done. I have removed this statement so that it better reflects actual statements in the citations. I appreciate you going through the draft again. If there are any other sentences or citations that you would like me to update, I would be happy to do so. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please remove all the original research, personal analysis, conjecture, syntheses, imaginings, hunches, personal opinions and thoughts, local hearsay, innuendos, etc. that imply a conclusion or "fact" that is not specifically and verifiably stated in the sources. Read WP:OR. You have been here long enough to know these things yourself. Netherzone (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Greg,

• I just started to read thru the draft again, and am wondering which citation verifies the first sentence that he was specifically says that he was "known for his black-and-white photography of the American West." Which source says that or is it original research? Netherzone (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated above this was meant to be a general statement to reflect the kind of photographs he has done. I have removed this statement so that it better reflects actual statements in the citations. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Also,

• This sentence is backed up by an image, not by a reliable source His first theater photographs were taken in 1915 for a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. How do you know that his first theater photos were this? The source does not say this. Is it original research? If not provide a proper source.
• Which source backs up this statement: Josselyn photographed other plays, including Treasure Island (1916), Inchling (1922), Caesar and Cleopatra (1922) and Hamlet (1926).?
• This sentence is sourced to a play brochure, rather than a reliable source, and why is this insignificant factoid presented as important key event that distinguishes his career as a photographer? It is not a key event doesn't distinguish his photographic career. It's trivia. In 1924, he handled the stage lighting for Ira Mallory Remsens’ play Mr. Bunt.

These are just a few things I discovered in the first five minutes of spot checking, it is not a comprehensive review. There is still a LOT of work this draft needs. Please go thru it again and trim the fluff in poorly sourced content. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Josselyn came to Carmel in 1914. I changed the setence about "His first theater photograph..." to "it was one of the first theater photographs..."
• The source that backs up the sentence: "Josselyn photographed other plays, including Treasure Island (1916), Inchling (1922), Caesar and Cleopatra (1922) and Hamlet (1926)" can be found in the statement "These photographs can be found at the, where I list the actual citations where the photographs can be found, e.g. for Treasure Island. If you would like me to improve this further, please let me know?
• I have removed the the trivia about stage lighting for the play Mr. Bunt.
• I will check all citations in the next 24-hours and improve the article further.

Greg Henderson (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of sources

This statement in the draft is patently false: In May 1917, Josselyn and his brother Winsor left Carmel for Pasadena to enlist in the United States Army Medical Corps during World War I. The source states that Talbot and Winsor Josselyn departed on Sunday evening for Pasadena... and make no mention whatsoever of Lewis Josselyn. There are way too many times that sources have been misrepresented. Netherzone (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not true, read the next source citations. I think you are jumping the gun on this! Please stop! Lets work together on this instead of making accusations of misrepresentation. To make this more clear, I have put all the citations at the end of the paragraph. Read through the citations. It clearly says what is stated. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Greg, after many years of myself, @Graywalls, @Melcous, @Possibly and newer editors such as @Left guide as well as several administrators patiently explaining these things to you, it still does not seem to sink in. Therefore, unfortunately, I have very little patience left. Editors have spent hours upon hours "helping" you clean up your many drafts and articles and answering edit requests for correcting poorly sourced content, and mentoring and teaching you to follow best practices. Please try to see it from the standpoint of other editors, and kindly stop these editing patterns, and learn to do these things yourself. I am saying this in good faith, you have been here long enough to know better. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Suboptimal presentation of sources

Collecting all references for the ingredients of a paragraph at the end of that paragraph is not always a good idea. Let's consider a sample.

While living in San Diego, Josselyn began photographing various California scenes. His earliest photos, taken on July 7, 1901, captured a head-on collision between two passenger trains at Black Butte Summit in Siskiyou County, California. These pictures appeared in Pacific Slope Railroads.

Three sources are provided for this as a whole:

• Abdill, George B. (1959). Pacific Slope Railroads, from 1854 to 1900. Superior Publishing. p. 152, 154. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
• "Troop Train Crashes Into Two Engines". The San Francisco Call and Post. San Francisco, California. July 8, 1901. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
• "Derailments at Black Butte". www.bbcrc.org. Retrieved 2024-07-19. Photos were taken on July 7, 1901, by Lewis Josselyn.

The first reference is of course to the book. We can examine the whole thing, including both specified pages, here at the Internet Archive (which also has at least one other copy). Page 152 is devoted to a single photograph of the aftermath of an accident "in the 1890's". There's no mention of the photographer or of the provenance of the photograph. Page 154 shows presents four captioned photographs. The description of one reads in part "G. M. Best collection, courtesy of David L. Joslyn"; that of another reads in part "Collection of the late J. W. S. Butler, courtesy of D. L. Joslyn". It is of course possible that Joslyn (a name that also appears elsewhere in the book) was a descendant of Josselyn (a name that doesn't obviously appear anywhere within it).

Unsurprisingly, the second reference is not illustrated with a photograph and doesn't mention Josselyn (or Joslyn).

The third reference, a page of the website of the Black Butte Center for Railroad Culture, says "The following three photos were taken the next day, on July 7, 1901, by Lewis Josselyn. Collection of California Views Historical Photos (www.caviews.com), used by permission."

How about this:

While living in San Diego, Josselyn began photographing various California scenes. His earliest known photos, taken on July 7, 1901, show the aftermath of a head-on collision between two passenger trains at Black Butte Summit in Siskiyou County, California.

References

Optionally, also with a footnote (Efn) containing either half or both of

For a contemporary newspaper account, see "Troop Train Crashes Into Two Engines". The San Francisco Call. San Francisco, California. July 8, 1901. The photographs appear, without crediting Josselyn, in Abdill, George B. (1959). Pacific Slope Railroads, from 1854 to 1900. Superior Publishing. p. 152, 154 – via Internet Archive.

This would, I think, be a more candid and helpful description of which part comes from, and can be verified, where. A better representation, let's say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate the tone of your message and will revised the text and citation as you suggested. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote removal

The notability hat note removal occurred in Special:Diff/1235075935, but I don't see consensus having formed suggesting this. @Netherzone:, I see you participated fairly recently. Am I missing something here? Graywalls (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears that Greghenderson2006 removed it on July 17. Thank you for noticing. He should not have done that. Netherzone (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here? COI?

James_Historian (talk · contribs). It strikes as really strange that someone would create a brand new account and come straight to an obscure draft article. @Greghenderson2006:, are you maintaining contact with any outside input in the creation of this article? Graywalls (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft is not indexed which makes it even stranger. Seems that there may be a connection to the Monterey County Historical Society (based on the edit summary and perhaps the user name), looks like the MCHS is in the business of selling Lewis Josselyn's photographs: [4] Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Josselyn - Reliable sources

@SafariScribe:. Thank you for your previous review of my deft articles. You recently reviewed the Lewis Josselyn article and did not accept it based on not supported by reliable sources. You also used an AFCH tool, which I don't have access to. Can you please tell me which sources you feel are not reliable? I will be happy to remove them or make any other improvements. Thanks! Greg Henderson (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, I'm working on that. The draft appears notable but will need few fixes, structuring and removal of puffs. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Source 1 is a list of six unavailable photos; I think archiving may restore them.
• Source 3 rounds nothing
• Source 4 is a clear representation and looks good
• Source 5 seems good also since you clipped it; better part of the newspaper will be a good improvement
• Source 6 is unnecessary; I wouldn't commend Department of State Passport as a secondary reliable source.
• Source 7 is good and I used it also for source 9
• Source 8 was about the Father
• Source 9 was a bit crawled though I will take it as reliable; and sustain the paragraph since it has the full information
• I can't see any thing worthy in source 10
• Where did you see "...developed connections with painters Maynard Dixon and Howard Pyle" in source 11 and 12; I can only confirm that he studied im Boston Fine Art school
• 13 is unreliable
• 14 are picture he took and we don't need "He earned a living as one of the first commercial photographers in Carmel", that was maybe a normal statement one can say.
• 15 is not reliable i.e provide no word about selling arts
• I can't see source 16
• 17 was showing images without any information or serving as source to the content it was cited.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi safariScribe, thanks for reviewing the Lewis Josselyn article. I really appreciate it! I like what you said that " draft appears notable..." This means a lot to me as I've worked on this article for the past year!

To answer your questions:

• The question about: "developed connections with painters Maynard Dixon and Howard Pyle" is in his obituary here. What do you think?
• Source 16 is here on page 9 It says Josselyn sold art calendars and mounted images of local scenes. I am OK with leaving this out.

I agree with the rest of your changes. Let me know what you think are the next steps before I resubmit the article? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, do not resubmit until I am done addressing the issues I found as well as the others by other reviewers above. It's not easy but I will try rounding this off by tomorrow or next. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe, please see my message below re: the accuracy of the birthdate and death dates. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate and death date accuracy still remains questionable (and COI related discussion)

I'm not certain that the matter of his birthdate and death date is fully resolved. This issue came up in the past and there was ambiguity (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn. Also whether there were two Lewis Josselyns who lived around the same time, but had different death dates. I remember there was a discrepancy regarding the dates on graves not coinciding with some sources. The very first citation in this draft does not back up his birthdate, even though it is placed after the sentence as if it does. What it substantiates is his father's birthdate (Charles Lewis Josselyn) not this Lewis Josselyn. Accuracy of the birth and death dates should be resolved before accepting the draft. The very first citation in the Early Life section of the draft is erroneous and does not verify his birthdate, nor that he was born in San Diego. Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone, I was about using the dictionary citation; that I will do tomorrow. I think there were displacements especially when there seems to be two Jossley, but one thing is that the reliable sources always say about the 'photographer'. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, SafariScribe. When you find a moment, also have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn regarding the ambiguity of death dates of 1961, 1963 and 1964. Netherzone (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

safariScribe, I think these citations shows the correct birth date and place for Josselyn. Lewis Josselyn (9/13/1883 - 3/14/1964) birthdate and place. His death dates are also listed in his obituary: here and here. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

From reading the discussion and comments, I'm seeing no real indication that notability of the subject has been demonstrated differently than at the time of AfD. The article was deleted on notability ground as a result of community consensus in the AfD. Bombing with sources don't fix notability. While an ounce of gold dust maybe worth the same as an ounce nugget, the same is not true if we were talking diamonds and the latter is more what SIGCOV is comparable with. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Notablity has been established in various secondary sources listed in the article and on this talk page. His work has been listed in various museums and collections listed as well. These sources pass WP:BASIC. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

However there is no consensus that the fact that his photos ended up in collections is due to their artistic value and his alleged notability. His photos were donated to collections, rather than going through a standard curatorial acquisition process that occurs when a museum desires to have an artist's work in their collection. Big difference! Other institutions where his work happens to be have his work in their collection because of the subject matter of the image, not due to the artistic worth. Big difference. Multiple editors have gone over this again and again. There is no consensus among the various editors and admins that have weighed in on this repeatedly - he is non-notable. No amount of insisting is going to make him notable, nor will it make local coverage instantly become national or international coverage. If he were notable, there would be monographs on his work, and there would be lots of coverage in art history books, and in books on the history of photography. There would be reviews in art magazines and academic journals. There are none of those indicators. He was a local commercial photographer simply doing his job taking pictures. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We need to understand what WP:BASIC means. Josselyn is notable because he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. See biography and here and here.

In addition, WP:GNG means "The topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

His artwork can be found in the permanent collections of several notable museums. With 64 citations and well documented photography I do not see why a simple Wikipedia article can't be created. I think you may be WP:LAWYERING this. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry but you need to understand what notability is and how it works on Wikipedia. 1) TFAOI is not a serious source in the art world. It is an accumulation/aggregation of user-submitted content and/or content added by the editorial board of one person who vets the material, who is also the sole board member. It is not the same as a peer-reviewed art history book or a peer-reviewed academic journal article, or an article in an art magazine with an editorial board. Nor is it the same as being in a National Dictionary of Biography - at all. We would need a whole lot more than a listing in TFAOI, which is kinda like Who's Who. 2) Quarterly Bulletin of the Monterey History and Art Association is a hyper-local newsletter with significant coverage of Jo Mora - not Josselyn - that simply mentions Josselyn as a "family friend" who photographed Mora (Josselyn is represented in photo captions). It's not SIGCOV by a long shot. 3) Is a book on the "Life and Times of Jo Mora" - it is not about Josselyn. It mentions him solely in relation to the photos of Jo Mora that document Mora's work - this provides no merit towards Josselyn's alleged notability. It is a collection of "photo credits by Josselyn. The book is SIGCOV of Mora, but not Josselyn, and notability is not inherited from other people that Josselyn associated with or was friends with or who were photographed subjects. Lastly, the ref-bombing does not contribute to notability either, and I have explained the problematics of the collections in my note above. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement. Please re-read WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which talk about a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has plenty of (a) significant coverage from, (b) reliable sources, that are (c) independent of the subject.

In addition, the TFAOI Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies source is used in Wikipedia for 104 articles, e.g. Arnold Genthe. Lewis Josselyn is one of the biographies in this book. The Jo Mora sources in the article show significant coverage on how Josselyn was able to document and record Mora's through his years in Carmel.

Josselyn was notable for:

* Official Photographer for the Forest Theater

* Historical Documentation

* Carmel’s Visual History

* Collections and Exhibitions

Greg Henderson (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 who is the "We" that you speak of? [5] Do you mean you and the Monterey County Historical Society? It seems there is some coordination going on otherwise how would the brand new editor "James Historian" in his very first edit [6] know about an obscure draft article if it has not yet been indexed? Please disclose your COI and or UPE with the MCHS. Netherzone (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Greghenderson2006 has conveniently ignored this question asked by Graywalls above while making several subsequent comments elsewhere on this talk page. Greghenderson2006, what is the answer to Graywalls' question? Left guide (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"We" above is refereing to the people in this discussion, as "We need to understand what WP:BASIC means." There is no coordination with " James Historian." I am suprised that the same people want to accuse me of some wrongdoing and seem to enjoy trying to delete or not accept my articles. Please note since May 2024, twenty-two of my articles have been accepted by my fellow peers. Let's try to work together to make this a win-win situation so that we all sccceed in what we are trying to do. As you can see from the above comments by me, the Lewis Josselyn article far exceeds the requirements for WP:GNG. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from the above comments by me, the Lewis Josselyn article far exceeds the requirements for WP:GNG. Please refrain from tooting your own horn, what you think about your own opinions isn't very important; community WP:CONSENSUS is far more paramount. The manner in which you are presenting your lone interpretation of sources and policy as some sort of truth can be seen as WP:FILIBUSTERING. If the article subject is really as notable as you seem to think he is, others would take up your cause for you, and I haven't really seen that yet, at least not on a level that resembles real consensus. And it's impossible to build consensus if you continue to push your interpretation. We get that you think your sources make the article subject notable, but there's no need to continue repeating that, please wait for input from others. Left guide (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, please do not dodge the question: "Please disclose your COI and or UPE with the MCHS." Netherzone (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no COI or UPE with MCHS. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, Have you been in communication with them, any conversations with them at all that mentions Wikipedia? Having brand new account coming in and popping on articles you've created is something that's happened a few times, such as at Zearn. Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How about the Pat Hathaway Photo Collection? Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, so what about this Pat Hathaway had is collection, which has been turned over to the Monterey County Historical Society. I spoke to the curator of his photographs at MCHS over the phone who can testify to his notability. at Special:Diff/1174977188 ? Graywalls (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006, the name and photos of Lewis Josselyn have been spammed across the encyclopedia - there are now over 200 hits for "Lewis Josselyn" on Wikipedia.[7] Coincidentally, the Monterey County Historical Society/Pat Hathaway Collection owns these images and are actively selling them online in the form of prints, posters, and tapestries.[8] You have uploaded many of these photographs directly from the Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS) - fronts and backs of the original prints with the original stamps and/or embossing. Additionally a brand new editor who oddly found this unindexed draft out of the blue who made one edit - about the MCHS. The article (that was deleted)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn and the current draft have all the marks of PROMO, COI and/or undisclosed paid editing, which you have done in the past repeatedly - for years. There are additional BEANS that I will not go into here. @Star Mississippi, @Graywalls, @Melcous, @Left guide @Seraphimblade, @Drmies - I'm curious if you think there's something strange about all of these coincidences. Netherzone (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, looks like another round of discussion at COI/N is in order if someone's got the time and will for it. All these Greg matters have been a huge time sink. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not going anywhere, unfortunately as there's no teeth at COI/N. Star Mississippi 14:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is far beyond what COIN is equipped to handle, which is mostly for run-of-the-mill SPAs. WP:ANI is the logical next step, and if that doesn't work, an Arbitration case request can be filed. Left guide (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I, for one, am tired of reading and rereading these discussions. Greghenderson's IDHT and INCOMPETENCE issues are serious. The argument for notability above (based on those three sources) is laughable, esp. for such an experienced editor. Netherzone refuted the claim pretty comprehensively and I would add only one thing: the book about Jo Mora (not about Lewis Josselyn) is from a publisher (Gibbs Smith) best known for, apparently, "children's books, including the BabyLit line, cookbooks, home reference books, and the LoveLit gift line"--and somehow this should confer notability onto the subject of this draft. And then Netherzone and Graywalls have to again explain basic facts about what kinds of sources are acceptable, what kinds of claims can be made based on a photo collection, etc. The user is, by now, a net negative. Star Mississippi, Seraphimblade, I haven't even addressed the COI implications of what Netherzone laid out... Drmies (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@DrmiesI don't think it's incompetence, it's pure stubborn determination to promote these subjects without caring whether they meet guidelines. I think ANI for a broader block is the first step, but I was the one who brought the ANI that led to the current topic ban. While I'm happy to endorse as it's time -- the time sink just continues in draft space and at AfDs - I don't think I can bring it. @Left guide if you think ArbComm is better I'm not against it, I just have no idea how that would proceed since while the topic ban appeal was roundly declined, I'm not sure we've exhausted all community options - just our collective patience especially NZ's and Graywalls. Star Mississippi 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a nearly unanimous support for main space block, but not much support for beyond that. Perhaps input from COI/N that suggests further undisclosed potential COIs may help gain support for additional actions. It's possible that people there could locate farther potential COI. Graywalls (talk) Graywalls (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, Graywalls, let's not go to COIN again, and let's not bother ArbCom with it. I'd block them myself right now, because I think we've all had enough. Here's what I propose--someone (who is not me, cause I'm sleepy) take this to ANI (or AN, maybe that's better), with a real brief summary of the problems we've had over the years. Point to the various important discussions, mention that there are serious COI issues and point to this most recent one, and say "we're thinking a block is best". Sorry, gotta run. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest going for TBAN on California and Henderson Family, broadly construed. This means including sea captains and such containing references to Henderson Family or California related topics. The reason being there was very little community support for site block in the last round of discussion. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Graywalls @Drmies. That makes sense. I'm going to start it now. Please chime in with what I've missed. Star Mississippi 21:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

for full disclosure, notifying all who may be watching this discussion without pings so as to avoid any issue of canvassing Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_or_Site_Block,_Greghenderson2006 Star Mississippi 21:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@GraywallsGraywalls, that is a generous suggestion, however I do not think a topic ban for California & Henderson family is going to work. I think the same behaviors will erupt in another subject area (perhaps going back to COI creations about extended family and relatives, which is where this all began over a decade ago) or to some other subject. If UPE is indeed occurring, and I suspect it is, this could be anywhere on the encyclopedia. It's been a huge time sink already. Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, "broadly construed" is meant to be inclusive of things like extended family member. So basically, anything Greg might consider putting on his Henderson Family Tree. Given the low support for site block in the last AN discussion I'm not sure if we have quite enough to get the support of a full site block.. Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, I'm afraid that won't address the UPE issues. Evidence of this has been emailed to functionaries. Netherzone (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)