Talk:New York State Education Department Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NRHP docs available[edit]

NRHP application docs (text and photo) are linked from the article. NOTE: The NRHP docs at New York State site are hard to read if using Firefox (should be fine in MicroSoft Internet Explorer) User;doncram will email PDF copies to anyone working on DYK who wants to receive, just send me an email requesting that. Will send by filetransfer service that requires your email to get notification when file can be downloaded from a temporary web location.

Question about 1908 date[edit]

Camelbinky asked, at my Talk page, whether the 1908 date in the article is correct according to NRHP documents. I am moving the question to here:

I was wondering if you could look into this, the Ed Building article right now lists the building's completion date as 1908, per the NRHP documents, however Emporis and every other source I've looked at keeps saying 1911 with dedication in 1912 (hence why it was such a travesty that the fire in the Capitol building destroying large amounts of the state library after between completion and but before dedication), there are lots of sources from 1912 on Google Books that back up Emporis and the other web sources, including,M1 Popular Science magazine issue of November 1912. Could 1908 be the date of the beginning of construction and not the end? I was hoping you could shed some light on the discrepency.Camelbinky (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know, not having looked properly at the NRHP docs. The 1908 date that I first put in the system is a date that appears in the National Register Information System (NRIS), which is data entered by staff. NRIS data entry is mostly good, but it also introduces typos for NRHP place names, addresses, counties, years, etc. The definitive source is the NRHP application document, not the data entry of selected items into the NRIS database.

The 1908 date might be a date built, it might be a date designed, it is just some date that is relevant, or it may be a typo and entirely wrong. The cut-and-paste ready NRHP infobox uses that date and labels it as date "built/founded", but it could easily be incorrect for us to assume that is either the date construction was completed or started, it could easily be the other one or it could be something else similar. To resolve this, I suggest looking at the NRHP application narrative. Camel, have you looked at the NRHP application document narrative? If it says differently, please do change the 1908 date in the article and/or please do describe the 1908 date correctly for what it is. Or could you please be more specific about where there is a discrepancy in the NRHP document vs. other sources? Thanks! And do let's keep on talking about the sources etc. here. doncram (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The NRHP application does state that 1908 is when construction started and 1912 is when it finished. But even that is not completely accurate, as many other sources state construction was finished in 1911 but DEDICATION and opening was delayed to 1912, hence the fire in the Capitol lead to needless destruction that could have been averted had the library been moved when construction was ended, things not mentioned in the NRHP application.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Emporis and Bethlehem elementary school sources[edit]

I suggest not relying upon the Emporis and the Bethlehem elementary or K-12 school webpages about the Department of Education building. These do not appear to be reliable sources, or they appear to be less reliable than the available NRHP application document which is a dated, reviewed, professional document written by a named historian author. The webpages are secondary, and have less credibility if there is any discrepancy. It is likely that the webpages have some correct information, likely pasted or reworded from the primary NRHP application document, but it is not clear what their sources are. If there are any discrepancies the webpage information should be disregarded. If there is any different info in the webpages than what is in the NRHP application document then that information should probably be questioned. Basically, it makes sense first to use the authoritative NRHP application document. As with NRIS data entry, these webpages are likely to have errors introduced. Then, if there is some interesting factoid like the elementary school class of 2010 toured the building recently, then that could further be added. But it is backwards to start with the derivative, secondary accounts. doncram (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be perhaps sarcastic. I sort of meaning to be that way. I don't want this collaboration to go the way of the last one, about Rapp Road, in which two editors were kind of talking past each other, with neither of us (me included) not looking at the source that the other editor was looking at. Please let's not say one of us the expert in one source, and has a monopoly on interpreting it. I don't want to be the one who writes most of this article, and I want for others to read and use the NRHP application document, which i believe should be a main source for the article. I don't want to "own" that document and be responsible for finding everything in it that should be reported here. That is why i put the links to the text and photos into the article, to make them available to other editors. And, I created PDF copies of the document to be able to email them to other editors.
I do appreciate that the secondary webpage sources have been identified. The Architectural record one clearly provides some new information about Collins + Scoville Architects' recent renovation project on the building. Also, secondary webpages often include photos that give different views, and I think it often adds to a wikipedia article to include those as External links. But still, to credit them in footnotes for basic information that is available in the authoritative, authored source, seems wrong to me. Basically, secondary webpages are plagiarizing: they report info but themselves give no sources. About older history of the site, probably they are mostly copying from the NRHP application document and not giving it adequate credit. They are certainly plagiarizing from somewhere, because they give no sources whatsoever. It seems wrong to bend over backwards to give credit to plagiarists. So, to reiterate, I think it is best to use the NRHP application document plus any other authoritative, primary sources first. And only then fill in any recent update info from secondary sources such as the Architectural Record one. doncram (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's my fault because I thought wikipedia:no original research in its section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources was discouraging primary sources in wikipedia because interpretation of primary sources should be done by a published source and THEN be used in wikipedia, but re-reading it I see that it does make an exeption if the primary source can be considered reliable and not likely to be misinterpreted by wikipedians. I see the difference now and how the other sites are probably plagiarizing since you're correct they dont cite sources (a kinda disheartening realization that a school website is plagiarizing...). I was editing in good faith, I wanted to add info from a wide range of sources instead of just relying on just the NRHP which is something you brought to the table, I really wanted to bring something different and contribute myself. What do you think about that Popular Science article from 1912 could that be used, I think it brought a pretty cool first hand account of the opening, and its kinda exciting that a building in lil ole Albany got mentioned in a magazine like that!Camelbinky (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the info you emailed me and the story the story in the Bethlehem School site is not mentioned, but that doesnt make it untrue, its a story I've read on numerous occasions including I believe Jack McEneny's Albany:Capital City on the Hudson, I will attempt to find a better source, I dont have McEneny's book with me, will have to get a copy.Camelbinky (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to article namespace[edit]

I just did some work on this article, rewriting the lead and reorganizing the article into sections. It seems like the date discrepancy will not pose a major problem, as we can just say that the building was constructed from 1908 to 1911 and opened in 1912. Unless anyone objects, I would be glad to move it to the article namespace in the coming days. --Albany NY (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW. Really nice! I hope you put it in for a DYK, you deserve it for getting that done, I've gotten distracted with other things and forgot about this sandbox.Camelbinky (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)