Talk:Glenmere mansion

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in New York may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Frogs End Tavern

The statements regarding the naming of the Frogs End Tavern are unsourced, and as they refer to motivations of individuals who may still be living, are in violation of the Wikipedia policies regarding the biographies of living persons. While I had not been the one to remove the claim previously, I am removing it now following its reinsertion. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Nat, you are mistaken, being as no living persons are either named or described in that sentence. As such, it does not constitute a biographical styatement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiviat (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It does not require that the specific person be named. Your edits have accused the developers of certain attitudes. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of link to photographs

I do not understand the concern expressed in eliminating the link to the online photo gallery that contains historical photos of the site. The claim that this is not authorized by the Glenmere Estate is befuddling; it's not as though this is an ad page that is supposed to work to the favor of the estate, and I see no reason to believe that the copyright in these photos belongs to the estate (in fact, I know that copyright in the older photographs does not, as they were published in a 1921 issue of Architectural Record. And pointing to photos is certainly an appropriate use for discussing the mansion. As for the accusation of "bait and switch" - no, the promised "bait", the photos, are indeed there. As for that it sends people to the environmental site, not that that would be an inherent problem if it did as long as they provided the promised resource.... but the page I linked to doesn't even have a link to the GCC site. So tomorrow I'll be readding that link, unless there's some good argument to the contrary. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nat- I'm unsure as to how to discuss this with you, can you please contact me somehow? Please not that ONE IP user has made bizarre and inflammatory claims about the creators of this page. Note as well that the Sugar loaf historical Society and the Glenmere Conservation coalition are both NYS-incorporated educational institutions charged with the responsibility of furthering/preserving historical record. Please note that the repeat IP addressee who began his/her revisions with considerable inflammatory comments and bona fide vandalism continues to 'edit' this page.

This mansion was built in 1912, IN Sugar Loaf, NY, on the Glenmere reservoir. The serial editor identified only by IP address is, clearly, angry with these non-profits and continues to remove their links. Please review all changes by this IP-identified 'editor' when considering prudent revision.

please contact me through site and advise as to how I might discuss same with you, as I'm an historian, not an IT specialist. Thank you. I would like to see accurate information reflected in this article, as opposed to angry histrionics and revenge edition. KIVIAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiviat (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of this message, you'll see my name and then the word "Talk". Click on "talk", and that will take you to my talk page. Adding a message to that (in much the same way you added a message to this page) is the best way of contacting me. Having said that, if what you want is to discuss what should be proper content for the Glenmere mansion page, the appropriate place to do that is right here, on the Talk:Glenmere mansion page, particularly in a case where you find yourself edit warring with another editor. This is where you come to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. As for keeping an eye on the IP address's edits, I've been keeping an eye on all edits recently and frankly you've both been editing inappropriately. I'm about to go undo your recent edit, which destroyed a number of style corrections and improved wikification and, in your desire to link to the GCC home page, removed a link to the relevant page - the page that hosts the Glenmere photos. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nat- please look at the SLHS and GCC pages, these host the glenmere photos. both are NYS Edu. incorporated institutions for furthering historical knowledge, why would you remove either link? if you're uneducated as to the subject, please avoid editing content sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiviat (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had you actually looked at the changes I made or read what I said above, you would see that instead of linking to the GCC front page, I linked directly to the relevant materials - the GCC photo page. You would also see that you've been deleting various legitimate edits in constantly restoring your previous versions. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Settling the issues

While the page is locked down, we should try to settle the issues by reaching consensus here, in talk, so that we do not see a return to the style of editing and accusations that brought us to this point. It seems to me that the key issues being wrangled at this point are:

Whether the questioning of the motivations for the name of the tavern should be included. (My stance is that citing one instance of one person questioning that is giving such questioning undue weight; it's hard to show that questioning has significant importance on the topic of the mansion. The oddity of the name in relationship to the situation is apparent anyway simply by listing the name of the tavern in the text.)
The appropriateness of linking to the Glenmere Conservation Coalition and where and how that link should take place. (My position: Having seen their website, it seems to me the relevant content is the photos, and the photo page is based link to directly. An outside source for more information is exactly what "external links" lists are made for. A complaint that the GCC is not officially endorsed by the Estate seems of no importance, as we're pointing to a source for information, not a source for official spin.)
The discussion of the extent of the Mandel restorations. Obviously, this is not an uncontended question. (My stance is to avoid this inclusion without better sourcing. The source given is a Letter to The Editor, which are generally not heavily vetted for facts; the speaker presents himself as a friend of the person he's lauding. The author was the founding president of the group, which was founded the same year that the letter appeared, which limits the weight with which one can give his title, with concerns that it is a self-granted credential. As such, I can't see citing this as a reliable source sufficient for a contentious statement with WP:BLP concerns.)

If the are other issues of true contention, please add them to the discussion. I'm working under the assumption that a lot of the other recent reversions (such as going to "Art dealer" rather than the uncapitalized "art dealer") were more a matter of reverting batches of edits without regard to their individual merit; please state here if this is not the case. I will also be looking to improve the articles in other small ways - adding a public domain photo of the garden, seeing if I can find any categories that this might be added to. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenmere Mansion title

Since Glenmere Mansion is a proper name, it would be normal per WP:TITLEFORMAT to have 'Mansion' be upper case. Does anyone object if I change the title? EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"World class"

There have been edits repeatedly trying to insert a claim that Glenmere is now of "world class" status. Firstly, "world class" is an opinion, and Wikipedia does not have its own opinion, and should not be presented as doing so. Secondly, the most recent attempt added a source which was problematic in two forms. One is that there was nothing at the source calling Glenmere "world class", and second being that it was to a user review site, which is not a reliable source under the terms of WP:RS. Let us restrict ourselves to the facts, and make sure that those are well-sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]