Talk:Elizabeth Harrison (educator)

New York City and Maria Kraus-Boelté

The following is copied here from Talk:New York:

Well, just had to refix Elizabeth Harrison (educator) as the article and the source both intend the state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the line should specify St. Louis, Missouri, and specify the location(s) in New York, since it is otherwise mixing cities and states in one line, which is inconsistent. I would assume that training sought in New York was in some populated place, and not roaming around the backwoods around the Finger Lakes. bd2412 T 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No. That's an imaginary problem, the next line has Chicago and Iowa, and there is no such problem either according to the source or in language. As for the Finger Lakes, they would be surprised to learn they had no schools. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an excellent opportunity for a case study. There is no ambiguity with Chicago and Iowa as place names, although it is still an inconsistent use of types. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that a person traveling to "New York" to receive instruction in some field of general knowledge, without additional context or clarification, is traveling to the city of New York, known for its large number of educational institutions. In the case of Elizabeth Harrison (educator), specifically, here is a source that says that Harrison "traveled to New York to study with Maria Boelte". Maria Kraus-Boelté, in turn, taught at the New York University School of Education. This is, of course, located in New York City. Therefore, the original edit was correct: Elizabeth Harrison sought training in St. Louis and in New York City. bd2412 T 01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The source it was taken from is this one [1] which explicitly references New York and links to New York, yes the state. The original was already correct - you did not make it correct, you made-up an imaginary problem where there is none. Both your source and the source used find targeting New York City of no import. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If the article specifies "New York City", it is more accurate based on the source I have provided. If for some reason you wish to forego that level of accuracy, I can't stop you. bd2412 T 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In neither source does "New York City" matter for accuracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why don't you remove the reference to Maria Kraus-Boelté, which is equally unimportant for accuracy? bd2412 T 03:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea because she studied with a number of different people and loading the article up with all of them takes away the focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC) It would be better to expand history of kindergarten articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can reduce the article to a sentence or two. Then it will be very, very focused indeed. bd2412 T 04:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps your comment is facetious, but no, for general encyclopedia article something like [2] provides proper focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be a terrible thing if we started modeling our encyclopedia after the outdated mentality of Britannica, which still thinks it is written on paper. bd2412 T 16:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No. What would be terrible is the argument that rejects WP:RS because of this, so much so, that it makes easily disproved claims that Britannica is not on the internet, [3], and Britannica gave up paper a while ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote more carefully. My claim is not that Britannica is still written on paper; it is that Britannica still writes as if it were on paper. What you are proposing is even worse - to reject a reliable source merely because it is not Britannica. bd2412 T 01:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Your argument based on your personal opinion of RS encyclopedia demonstrates the your claims are without merit. Sorry, Wikipedia do not work on your personal opinion. An RS encyclopedia you are not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you forgotten what you are arguing for? I added reference to Maria Kraus-Boelté precisely because a reliable source, National Louis University, states that Harrison traveled to New York to study with Boelté. Clearly, National Louis University feels that this is an important historical fact. However, you chose to remove this reliably sourced information from the article solely to conform it to what Britannica sees fit to include, therefore elevating Britannica's editorial policies over Wikipedia's. If you are allowed to do this, then nothing will prevent you from trying to remove every piece of information in Wikipedia not found in Britannica. bd2412 T 03:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Have you forgotten that we don't just copy everything in sources? Have you forgotten, that you did not find a single one of those sources and put them in the article? I did that, so plainly did not reject the sources. Your claim that you know better than the general RS encyclopedia does about a general encyclopedia article is the only thing that is whole unsourced. Your claim can only be based on an argument that we must copy everything in sources, which is plainly untrue. Your edit unbalanced the article by focusing on a single name drop, and it was nothing to do with a good encyclopedia article, it had to do with odd fixation on New York City that neither source says is of import. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you now referring to Britannica as "the general RS encyclopedia"? I can assure you, its authors are not infallible. It is entirely encyclopedic to describe the notable influences of notable people; if you find this addition to be "unbalanced" then balance it by adding a more complete picture of the subject's network of influence, rather than concealing this information from the reader. bd2412 T 04:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Your edit did not describe -- influence, let alone influences, was not even discussed in your edit. Of course, the article is not about the name you dropped, it is about someone else. As for your personal assurances, I'm sure we already discussed that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion has become circular. I therefore propose that since the National Louis University article is a reliable source, and this source specifies the people with whom Harrison studied, that this article should specify that Harrison studied with Susan Blow, Alice H. Putnam, and Maria Kraus-Boelté (there is more than enough material available to support an article on Alice H. Putnam, to be created). bd2412 T 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for realizing your prior edit was unbalanced and poor focus. Above you argue you want to discuss their influences on Elizabeth Harrison, but you have offered no source discussing their influences on Elizabeth Harrison. And no, just because a source has something in it is not a reason to put it in an encyclopedia article. It's poor research to read one article and the decide on that. Leaving the reader in the dark about why these people are so important to the subject that you need to distract them from the subject by dropping a list names is bad encyclopedia writing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from the source in question states as follows:

At the urging of a childhood friend, Harrison visited Chicago and enrolled in the Kindergarten Training School run by Alice H. Putnam, who opened the first (private) kindergarten in Chicago in 1874, and in nine months Harrison received both a diploma and a certificate to train kindergarten teachers. In the following few years, Harrison attended Susan Blow's Kindergarten School in St. Louis, the first public school kindergarten in the country (opened in 1873), and traveled to New York to study with Maria Boelte — who had lived and studied with the widow of Froebel — and with John Kraus, both of whom had also taught Susan Blow and Alice Putnam. Thus, within a few years of her introduction to the kindergarten, Harrison had studied with the pioneers of the movement in the U.S.

It seems quite significant that Harrison studied under Putnam for nine months, and received credentials thereby, and that the three people with whom Harrison studied are identified as "the pioneers of the movement in the U.S.". bd2412 T 17:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, an additional source provides substantially more information on the relationships between Harrison and some of these other educators. See Barbara Beatty, Preschool Education in America: The Culture of Young Children from the Colonial Era to the Present (1997):

In the Chicago area, kindergartners Anna Bryan, Alice Putnam, and Elizabeth Harrison collaborated with progressive educators Francis Parker and John Dewey and advocated change or compromise.

[P. 73.]

Harrison attended public schools in Davenport, Iowa, and in 1879, at a friend's invitation, went to Chicago to see the kindergarten in which her friend's daughter was enrolled. Much impressed, Harrison stayed, attended Alice Putnam's training school, and became Putnam's assistant for a year. Then, like Putnam and so many other kindergartners, she went to St. Louis to study under Susan Blow and then to New York to train with Maria Kraus-Boelte before returning to Chicago to teach in a private kindergarten.

[P. 86.]

Influenced in part by Froebel's emphasis on mothers in his Mother Play, Harrison began looking for ways to involve mothers more directly in kindergartning. In 1883 Harrison and Alice Putnam started the Chicago Kindergarten Club and invited mothers to join along with their children.

[P. 87.]

Therefore, it seems like the relationship between Harrison and Putnam in particular was far more important than this article currently indicates. bd2412 T 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The first source as reliable as it is is still an unsigned article on the web pages of the university she founded. The kindergarten movement was small without standards, so them working together is hardly unique. As your second source makes clear, studying with Susan Blow and Kraus Boulte was not at all unique to Harrison. It does discuss Froebel's Mothers at Play as an influence on Harrison but that's Froebel. I suppose as there are several points of intersection between Harrison and Putnam in your second source something can be worked in about Putnam, with the understanding that this article is not about Putnam. As I have said before, better to expand the U.S. schooling articles, as your second source is about schooling and that is the purpose for linking those articles from here to give the bigger picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a fairly common practice to indicate which notable figures in a field individuals have studied under, and which notable figures those individuals have mentored. bd2412 T 15:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing about "mentored", and "studied under" you give a weight which is not indicated -- in kindergarten classrooms, with multiple women working and seeing what is being done there, the principal of the school does not even have to be there, and one can do that training in a matter days, weeks, or months. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)