Jump to content

Talk:Pacific Science Center

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

Untitled

[edit]

"The arch-shaped side bracing along the walls look very similar to the WTC" --- I don't think that's true. I have never seen a pointed arch at WTC (although of course I could be mistaken.) Recommend deleting that sentence; at most its trivia. rewinn 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Science Center was designed by Minoru Yamasaki, the architect that designed the World Trade Center. The arch motif was used by Yamasaki in a number of buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASeattleite (talk • contribs)

Longhouse

[edit]

Lhb1239, I understand that "Southern Kwakiutl" is given in the reference. However, a) Kwakiutl is not a page about a specific people, it is a page discussing the common misuse of the term. In fact, that page itself points out that the Laich-kwil-tach are also known as the Southern Kwakiutl. b) There are only one Kwakiutl people, the Kwagu'ł, and there are no "northern" or "southern" Kwagu'ł. In fact in the erroneous anthropological classification the Kwagu'ł were considered a "Northern Kwakiutl" people, living as they do near Fort Rupert. c) "Southern" is capitalized for a reason: Southern Kwakiutl specifically refers to the Laich-kwil-tach, and I don't believe it matters that the reference doesn't say this directly. Because "Southern Kwakiutl" is synonymous with Laich-kwil-tach, it is perfectly in sticking to the reference to use, while pointing the link to Kwakiutl is actually deviating from it. We don't need to slavishly use the exact phrasing from a reference that is being used. If a reference says that "Ulysses S. Grant was appointed by the 16th President of the United States to head the Union Army", we don't need to actually say "the 16th President of the United States" in the article. We can say "Abraham Lincoln" because the two are synonymous, and his article makes that point clear. In the same way Laich-kwil-tach makes it clear that they are the Southern Kwakiutl. Owen (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have a strong understanding based on your education and background of the indigenous peoples of North America. Regardless, the article is about the Pacific Science Center and an attraction that was part of their permanent displays for decades. For decades, the longhouse was billed and referred to as a Kwakiutl Longhouse, even the interactive presentations given several times daily inside the exhibit. The reference provided refers to the exhibit as a Kwakiutl Longhouse. My suggestion is that we leave "Kwakiutl" as it is (since it IS what the PSC called the exhibit) and have the redirect take the reader to the Laich-kwil-tach article. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the history behind its presentation, but all the same the article should be accurate and respectful to the people responsible for its construction. I might suggest as a compromise saying "Laich-kwil-tach (Southern Kwakiutl) longhouse", so that the article correctly identifies those responsible for its construction, but additionally explains its presentation as a Kwakiutl longhouse. Owen (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article is about the Pacific Science Center and its exhibits, not about First Nations tribes. Your compromise is a good one, however, in order to keep the article about the article's subject, it should read "Southern Kwakiutl Longhouse (Laich-kwil-tach)". The same should go for the Sea Monster House article, since it is about the exhibit in the PSC, not the tribe itself. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it matters that this article is about the Pacific Science Center. It's more important to be accurate than to represent the point of view of the institution under discussion. Frankly the most accurate way would be to say "The Life Building contained the Sea monster house, a Laich-kwil-tach longhouse misattributed by the museum to the "Kwakiutl"." Not to say I actually want it to read that way, because it is wordy and awkward. At the same time, I do not find it acceptable to intentionally misapply the origins of a longhouse simply because a museum that exhibited it did so. I don't find your alteration of my compromise satisfying, because it emphasizes the mistake by the museum over the identity of those who actually constructed it. Owen (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're speaking out of bias, Owen. It most certainly does matter that the article is about the PSC and its exhibits. As a sociologist, I can see how you would want it to say what you prefer from a sociological standpoint. But that's really neither here nor there. The article is about the PSC. Looking at it from that NPOV viewpoint, my proposal makes more sense in a neutral manner than your viewpoint in a biased, and POV manner. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I think you need step back and take a breath and consider what's right here from a Wikipedia standpoint, not your own. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not required to be laudatory upon their subject matter, or to unquestioningly accept mistakes made by museums. Furthermore, the longhouse itself has probably existed considerably longer than the museum that exhibited it. It may have been exhibited by a museum, but it also existed outside of its status as an exhibit. It was a Laich-kwil-tach longhouse long before it was ever mistakenly exhibited as a Kwakiutl longhouse. You seem to be saying that the importance of the longhouse is limited to its temporary existence as a museum exhibit, and that its false exhibition as "Kwakiutl" takes priority over the reality of the people who actually constructed it. In any case, I will request outside consideration on this matter, because I can't see us coming to an agreement. Owen (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're incorrect that the actual longhouse (on Gilford Island) existed longer than the Sea Monster longhouse exhibit. The actual longhouse only existed 15 years before it's facade was removed and replaced with a Raven facade at which point it became a Raven longhouse. The exhibit itself lasted in the PSC for decades and still exists in its current location after being removed from the PSC. Don't forget -- it's an exhibit, a replica, not a real longhouse (and therein, I believe, lies a big part of the difference between what you are proposing and what I am proposing). Still, I am glad you are asking for other opinions and continue maintain that the article is about the Pacific Science Center and its exhibits. And that, I believe, is where the focus should lie (i.e., "verfiability"), not in tribal differentiations and professional bias based on personal knowledge (i.e., "truth"). I do want to make it clear that regardless of how this turns out, I don't see this as a win/lose between two editors, just two editors looking for the best and most cooperative resolution possible in the interest of the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a civil approach to this dispute. I would much rather work with you in all of this rather than against you, and figure out what works best for the article.
It is important that it's a replica, which is a detail I didn't catch earlier. All the same, it is still important to identify as specifically as we can just whose longhouse it is modeled after. For that matter it is significant that it is based on houses from Gilford Island, because that island is well to the north of the Laich-kwil-tach's territorial range, which makes me wonder if the reference is in error about it being a "Southern Kwakiutl" longhouse at all. It could be safer to say (as I did originally) that it is a replica of a Kwakwaka'wakw longhouse (Kwakwaka'wakw being the nation that includes the Laich-kwil-tach, the Kwagu'ł, as well as many other tribes include those native to Gilford Island), which although less specific is at least certainly true. Owen (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration is that the posts and beams were not replicated but did actually come from a historic longhouse. The Seattle Art Museum even gives the name of the creator of these posts as Arthur Shaughnessy (Hemasilakw) of the Dzawada'enuxw tribe of the Kwakwaka'wakw. So it seems that at least the posts of the longhouse were not "Southern Kwakiutl" in origin. Owen (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the conversation you both have been having here, and I have a few suggestions, if you're willing to hear me out.
  • Lhb1239, we have an obligation not to report information we know to be unreliable. I'm fairly convinced that Owen knows what he's talking about—and it's fairly clear that the source here, what looks like an artist's self or promotionally-written biography from a gallery website, is not the sort of firm sourcing that we would have to accept the word of without further qualm. It's not an academically convincing authority.
  • Owen, we also have an obligation to back up what may be the truth in the real world with accessible sources. The information that you're bringing to the table about the possible origins of the exhibit is great, but the way you're putting it together, it's going to come across as synthesis of existing sources, and not necessarily verifiable information. Can you find any news or journal articles which unambiguously refer to this particular exhibit/replica correctly? If so, we can source it right now and throw out this reference to the gallery page, which is near-unacceptable as a source (IMO) anyway.
Bearing all this in mind, I think our way forward is not to discuss what might be going on here, but find a way to prove it. I've already searched the Pacific Science Center site for any reference to this exhibit. Looks like it's too old. It appears Bill Holm, an apparently well-known artist specializing in Pacific Indian reconstructions, was responsible, but I can't find anything on this particular longhouse. We do have to do something in the meantime, and we can't a) have inaccurate information or b) use information without a clear source, so in the meantime, I have edited the article to reflect a simple title that I believe all three of us can agree on: that it is a replica of a First Nations longhouse. — Chromancer talk/cont 18:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I think our way forward is not to discuss what might be going on here, but find a way to prove it." I wholeheartedly agree. All morning, I've been trying to find something -- anything -- that would back up the PSC's use of "Kwakiutl" during the entire run of the exhibit. So far, nothing can be found online other than the reference I provided a couple of days ago (and several similar references). I've done a search at the Burke Museum website as well with no luck. At this point, seriously, I would be okay with just eliminating the reference to "Kwakiutl" in relation to the longhouse all together until a solid ref can be found. Maybe saying, "First Nations coastal longhouse" would suffice until that elusive reference can be found. Thanks for your detailed response to this dilemma, Chromancer. I appreciate your help. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working with us on this, Chromancer. I agree that there is definitely a problem regarding lack of sourcing for this issue. The only reference we have for the longhouse currently comes from a short summary about one of the men responsible for the reconstruction of the house. I've been trying to do more research. The Leader-Post reported in November 1980 that "the Sea Monster House was built before the turn of the century by [Bill] Scow's father, Chief John Scow, on Gilford Island." The article seems to consider the house put on display as a continuation of the original Sea Monster House. [1] John Scow also built the Raven House, the houseposts of which were used for the reconstruction project. (I managed to pull up as much as "The Sea Monster House was a reconstruction combining a painted facade copied from the original Sea Monster House with the original houseposts from the Raven House. Both original houses were built by John Scow and stood successively on the same Gilford Island site. Mr. Hauberg purchased the original houseposts and frame timbers from John Scow's son Bill in..." from a Google preview of the The Spirit Within, published by the Seattle Art Museum.) The Sun, in 1984, reporting on the death of Bill Scow, makes it clear that both Bill Scow and his father John Scow were chiefs of the "Kwicksuitaineuk" people (Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish First Nation) of "the Kwakiutl tribal nation". [2] But this was 1980, and nearly everyone referred to the Kwakwaka'wakw as the "Kwakiutl" at that time, including anthropologists. More recent sources are a bit better at making this distinction, although the term "Kwakiutl" is still often preferred to "Kwakwaka'wakw" because it is more familiar to people outside of British Columbia. For instance, Ira Jacknis' The storage box of tradition: Kwakiutl art, anthropologists, and museums, 1881-1981 uses "Kwakiutl" in the title but is clearer about the distinction within her book. This book is the clearest source I can find showing that the house is Kwakwaka'wakw: I don't have physical access to the book, but I can preview this much from Google: "In 1966 Seattle lumberman and collector John Hauberg purchased one of the last standing Kwakwaka'wakw houses in the old style. The John Scow house from Gilford Island was missing its roof, front, and sides..." If necessary I could go to the library to get more information and a better citation from that book. A second source referring to the house as Kwakwaka'wakw is a book called Selected Works published by the Seattle Art Museum. It says (again from a preview): "These grand, split cedar board-covered buildings are still being built among the Kwakwaka'wakw, today primarily for ceremonial performances. They once housed large extended families, with the interior partitioned off for individual family groups around the central fire area. This house frame comes from the John Scow family of Gwa'yasdams Village, who dedicated the original house in an elaborate potlatch in the year 1916." Owen (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - this thing has gone way off track. The Pacific Science Center referred to it as a Kwakiutl Longhouse as long as it was in existence there. The Burke Museum still refers to it as the Kwakiutl Longhouse reproduction from the Pacific Science Center. The topic of the article is the Pacific Science Center, not Kwakiutl, not longhouses, not even the First Nations of British Columbia. Logic tells me that the section on the longhouse in the article needs to reflect the nomenclature used by the Pacific Science Center (again, the article is about the PSC and its exhibits) with a notation that Kwakuitl was used (unknowingly by the PSC) incorrectly. I understand that Kwakuitl was used incorrectly (by many) for years and that has since been corrected. That doesn't change the fact that (a) this article is about the Pacific Science Center, and (b) the longhouse exhibit and reproduction was billed differently and discussed differently by the center's staff and administration and donors for decades. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pacific Science Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pacific Science Center. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pacific Science Center. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Science Center. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dated content

[edit]

I've made a few edits to remove content which seemed out of date or relevant only in the time it was originally written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7C10:E370:178:7F64:1C97:C62C (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_Science_Center&oldid=1247739297"