Talk:Simon Bamberger House

bio information relevant

In this edit an editor removed material based on the NRHP nomination document about Simon Bamberger. The house is significant because of its association with Simon Bamberger, so deleting all information about Bamberger seems unhelpful. The edit summary to the effect that bio info belongs only in a bio article, and has no relevance here, seems wrong, IMO. Other editors' help in restoring/expanding material in this article would be appreciated. --doncram 08:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That edit was a good one. This article should be strictly about the house. Notability is not inherited, so if the house is notable only because of it's ownership by Bamberger this article should really just be merged into the Bamberger article. Anyone wanting biographical information about Simon Bamberger can click on the link to the long article about him. To take a small snippet about his religion gives undue weight to that one aspect of his life. There must be some more information about the house itself to be added instead, if it is notable as a house. 69.95.203.220 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. But, this and many other NRHP listings are in fact about the association with a person. Yes, some NRHP houses are significant for their ground-breaking architecture, or for other reasons. But many like this are significant wholly or partially as artifacts associated with a person. The stated significance of the place, in its NRHP nomination, is: "The home derives its primary significance from its orignal owner, Simon Barnberger, one of the roost significant figures in Utah political history. It was his election as governor in 1916 which served to bridge the.chasm between Itonaons and non-Morions which had cut through Utah politics for nearly a half century...." Sure, more facts about the house itself can and should be added, but the idea that no bio info belongs in an article about a house is just wrong. In wikipedia, there is a rule that notability is not inherited. But in NRHP listing, notability is inherited. And it is a fact that the main reason this place is listed is the person. And the wikipedia article should reflect some of the reasoning in the NRHP nomination, having to do with why the person is important to remember. Some story is needed, and then the reader, if interested, can go on to more info in the full bio article. --doncram 21:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree with Doncram. The house is important and listed on the NRHP because of Bamberger, who was one of the most important people in Utah in his day, largely because he wasn't a Mormon. But I can't agree that there was a chasm between Itonaons and non-Morions; that's a misrepresentation of history. :-) Ntsimp (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing there were tens of thousands of non-Mormons in Utah at the time, 99% of whom will never have a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, every Governor of Utah, Mormon or not, has a Wikipedia article. So I would conclude Bamberger was one of the most important people in Utah in his day largely because he was Governor, not because he was non-Mormon. Yes, his religion is part of his story, but wouldn't some people say his accomplishments as Governor were at least as important, if not more so? We could write several paragraphs about the man to present a balanced picture, but then this article would be 80% about the man instead of the house, and just duplicate what's already in his article. We already say he was Governor in this article, which is the most important thing about him. I still think it's better to write about the man in his article and the house here. And if there's really nothing significant to say about the house except that he owned it, it's not notable by our standards, even if NRHP has different standards, and the three lines and the picture can easily be incorporated into his article. 69.95.62.85 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, i added a little info about the house and its entablature, etc., which now rules out merging this into the Bamberger article, because it is house detail that is not relevant for the bio. So stop with that please.

And, i restored some discussion about Bamberger. I don't mind if someone chooses to substitute some other info about Bamberger, of about the same length, more than a snippet. It is my chosen addition, my chosen wording, not claimed to be incredibly superior to another other selection about Bamberger that could be written. But saying a bit more than merely he was governor, is important, to give a bit more sense of place about this house (contemplate this: here was the guy who bridged some gap between the Ionians and the Dorians, or whatever), and perhaps to interest the reader to go on to a fuller bio at the Bamberger article. There's some support above for saying more. Over and out. :) --doncram 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic to say info about the house can't be added to the Simon Bamberger article because it isn't relevant, while at the same time saying info about the person must be added to the house article. Especially since the house is notable only due to Bamberger, while Bamberger is not the least bit notable due to the house. And especially since you took half my advice and already put the picture of the house in the Bamberger article. Also, it's not clear why it's "absurd" for a Mormon of the time to refer to a non-Mormon as a Gentile. I see the irony but not the absurdity. 69.95.203.150 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)