Talk:Suzanne Muchnic

August 2013

Regarding the note in the box at the top of this listing, I think that it should be removed - in response to the issues:

1. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2013)

Two citations have been added to verify claims in the LA Times article that Muchnic published a book. Two articles have been added to demonstrate that she is still active as an art writer.

2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (February 2013)

She is listed as a Notable Alumnae on the Scripps College Wikipedia page. She had an over 25 year career as an art writer with the Los Angeles Times. Her art journalism earned her the Distinguished Alumna Awards from Scripps College and Claremont Graduate University and first prize for arts and entertainment reporting from the greater Los Angeles Press Club. Her book, "Odd Man In: Norton Simon and the Pursuit of Culture," a critically acclaimed biography of a major California industrialist and art collector, published by the University of California Press in 1998 [1] won the 2002 Donald Pflueger Local History Award of the Historical Society of Southern California.

3. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (February 2013)

Again, additional citations have been added. It is not uncommon for citations to be connected to the subject. She did not write the articles herself and they are reputable sources.

Compare Suzanne Muchnic's Wikipedia entry to the entry for journalist Serena Altschul. I don't see the problem with the Muchnic sources; they are more reputable than the ones in that entry.

I welcome any questions.

I think that this box of critical notes / issues should be removed.

MusaVeneziana (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)MusaVenezianaMusaVeneziana (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2016

Dear MusaVeneziana,
As you requested via e-mail, I have added a 'cite book' template for Odd Man In and also tidied up the other ref tags, although I may revisit these again in the near future.
You will notice that I have also applied several other changes:

1. consolidated several ref tags which were duplicated; this consolidation is achieved by adding a

name="reftagname"

to the first full length 'cite' template. Then, for subsequent uses of the same ref tag, one simply uses the short form:

<ref name="reftagname"/> (note the '/' before the '>')

this short form will cause simple superscripted letters to be added ahead of the footnote in the Reflist, like this: ^{a b c d e}

(For further details on this topic, please see WP:NAMEDREFS.)

1. removed unnecessary single spaces before the ref tags
2. added wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles, such as Gobi Desert
3. improved punctuation and fixed a few typos, such as ArtNews > ARTnews (for which there is an article on Wikipedia)
4. re-organized all the entries—in section Selected published articles and reviews—into a bulleted list and in chronological order of publication.
5. removed unnecessary use of upper cases in section headers
6. maybe other changes that escape me now, but you can review all of these via 'View history'.

I have also changed the article's 'class=' from Stub to Start, since it really isn't a stub anymore.
I hope this helped for now;
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 23:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Pdebee. What an amazing amount of work you have put in this article! I think that it looks much better. The details like ARTnews are a wonderful touch. I very much appreciate your contributions to this article! MusaVeneziana^(talk) 01:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

Thank you for your latest post, immediately above; you are most welcome!

Today, I expanded the 'cite web' entries—in section Selected published articles and reviews—as follows: added clauses for her name: 'first=' & 'last=', and also relocated the details previously in 'title=' clauses into new 'publisher=' and 'date=' clauses. I daresay these specific citations now look the part, since all the 'title=' clauses contain only the exact text from the online sources, and everything else is coded in the other, appropriate clauses. Also, notice that the page occupancy of the text in the 'References' is better distributed than before, with the two columns better balanced.

I hope you don't mind that I did all that? It occurs to me that it might have been something you wanted to do yourself... By asking me to help with the 'cite book' template, you drew me into the article, and then the Wikignome in me simply took over and got carried away! However, I promise not to interfere with your future re-creation of the HH article!

Coming back to this article, perhaps you might consider searching for additional sources about Muchnic, other than her own writings; there now seems to be an imbalance within the sources, most of which are from her writings (books and articles). But please don't worry: this is not an issue with a start-class article; now that there is a good structure in place, it'll be easier for you and/or other editors to expand it.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrick, Pdebee, or shall I say, Superman? Thank you for your many contributions on this article! MusaVeneziana^(talk) 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome. (Now; where's that telephone booth?!)

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 09:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed birthdate and age - retained birth year - as the aticle's subject is a living person; including more details than birth year may instigate privacy / sensitivity issues. Moved articles and review from References to Selected articles and reviews section - as they are not mentioned in the article and are part of a list of published articles / reviews by Muchnic. Added 3 footnotes and a quotation at the end of the Art Critic section and a note to the Academic section. Thank you to all collaborators on this article. I hope that these changes are acceptable to others. MusaVeneziana^(talk) 15:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

Thank you for adding more content to the article; this is definitely a move in the right direction. However, please allow me to point out three changes that will now need to be refined:

1. After the sentence ending in 'Gobi Desert', you replaced the earlier ref tag (with name="SMRetires2009") with a new one, which is fine, except that there is no need to insert the mention of the citation in the prose, since that is the purpose of the ref tag. Also, please remember always to add a name="refname" to a ref tag, as this enables you or a future editor to re-use it, should any of you wish to quote more of the source's content.
2. I understand your sensitivity about her date of birth; it is important to remember that this information is already in the public domain: our colleague Vycl1994 kindly added the Authority control template , listing all the entries from various online databases, where Muchnic's birth date is already displayed. Also, a major point of Wikipedia is that it is not censored, and most articles about living people do display the subject's birth date when it is available through secondary or tertiary sources.
3. The section Selected published articles and reviews is part of the article; therefore, all its content must adhere to the guideline of verifiability, hence the requirement to have citations to corroborate every article in that list, like I had left them (via this edit)earlier.

Finally, please may I suggest that you make changes on a piecemeal basis; that is to say: if you need to modify three parts of an article, then please make three edits, one for each modification, instead of one edit for all three. This is for practical reasons: another editor might not agree with one of these three changes, and it will therefore be more convenient for that editor to use the 'Undo' button for that one change. Otherwise, the 'Undo' button will revert all three changes, and the only way left to the other editor is to edit the single change manually, instead of simply using the 'Undo' button and leaving an edit summary. Thank you for understanding.

For now, I will further refine the changes you made today, simply to show you the practical examples for the three cases I listed above. Please don't worry; you are entirely empowered to make changes and I am pleased to be here (willing and able!) to guide you as you go along in your learning.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Patrick, Pdebee, Thank you for enlightening me about the advisability of breaking up the editing - that did become apparent when I couldn't document all the changes at once in the tiny window!

About the inclusion of the Selected published articles in the Muchnic References - I removed them because of what you mentioned earlier above. You wrote: " there now seems to be an imbalance within the sources, most of which are from her writings." I checked on the way publications are listed in other Wikipedia articles about art critics. In a sampling of Los Angeles art critics and a few from across the nation, I found not one with a list of articles or reviews, only lists of books and only if they'd written a lot of them. I'm beginning to think that my idea to include this list really does not serve the article. For one thing, the Wikipedia administrators that will eventual grade the article may take a dim view of the References, now so heavily skewed towards Muchnic's own authorship. Also, her art writer colleagues might think that her article is a bit much.

I must admit that this article is starting to look like a Master's Thesis; it has become my laboratory of learning, so to speak. I like the article, but it's obvious that I have a penchant for being long winded. So, what do you think, Patrick? Do you think that it might serve the article best to streamline it a bit? I realize that you have gone to a lot of work making these beautiful footnotes so perhaps on that basis alone you might be hesitant to eliminate the Selected published articles and reviews. I think, though, that their removal altogether, that is the "Selected published articles and reviews" might best serve the article. See the article for this art writer, the current LA Times staff art critic Christopher Knight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(art_critic)

I think that the Muchnic article is a great article but it is a bit lengthy; also, it's important air may be a bit off putting for some of her colleagues. If it were my article, I certainly wouldn't want that. But then, I wouldn't appreciate my age marching across the info box either. It may be true that if one searches the internet her exact birth date will come up; and anyone would find mine, or yours as well. This isn't an issue of censorship but courtesy and relevance. Is it required or necessary to include the exact date and spell out her advanced age? Well, this is all food for thought. Many of the articles for art critics I looked at had nary a birth date, especially the women. Thanks for the heads up about the finer points of footnote coding. Thanks for all of your kind assistance and especially taking the time to read my viewpoint on these two issues. (un coda musicale, allegro ma non troppo) MusaVeneziana^(talk) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

First of all, thank you for understanding the merits of applying piecemeal edits, and also the value of completing edit summaries (in the tiny window, as you called it).

Well, the balance in the References is now 7 'about' her and 9 'by' her, among which there are 3 books and 6 articles; I daresay that's acceptable. If you were able to come up with, say, another 2 items written by others about her and/or her work, then the balance will be even. What I like about that section (Selected published articles and reviews) is that it does give a good idea of her work, and I would certainly keep it for now. The fact that I have improved many of the citations is largely irrelevant; it's what Wikignomes do (), and I certainly wouldn't be attached to keeping the section for that reason alone.

I personally don't think the article is too long or too long-winded; I think it looks good and you should feel proud of what you've achieved, even though it also served as your learning laboratory at the same time; I daresay this happened to all of us in the beginning and you should certainly not worry about that, because other editors will come along and improve it further if necessary.

What I have also just realized (because I was largely in gnomish mode, yesterday), is that we could certainly add a Bibliography section, since she wrote books; the fact that they are mentioned in the body of the article doesn't mean they can't be summarized in such a section; in fact, the more I think about this, the more I realize that it's making the article look incomplete. So, I'll add one and let you decide if you want to keep it.

Finally, on the topic of her precise date of birth. I have now also found it on prabook; I was once informed that this is considered a primary source because an entry in there is generally created by the person him/herself. Of course, we can't be sure that she created an entry about herself on prabook, but her birth date is shown there, in addition to the links in the 'Authority control' template. But that's beside the point: if you feel uncomfortable about keeping her birth date in the article, then I would support its removal, on the basis of WP:DOB. I will therefore restore your earlier revert. However, please know that another editor might well re-enter it in the future.

In summary, I will take the two actions mentioned above (add a Bibliography and return her birth date to the year only) and wait for you to respond. It's nearly 11pm here so I won't stay up too late.

Thank you for all your contributions to this article, and for caring so much about doing it well!

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you know that you can pipe my first name inside your greetings, like this: Dear {{U|Pdebee|Patrick}}?

Dear MusaVeneziana,
As you requested via e-mail yesterday, I have now applied the changes you suggested, plus a couple more, in passing :

1. Added several, appropriate categories. I also added her name in: List of Claremont Graduate University people#Arts.
   Latest update: Kept unchanged.
2. Replaced the 'cite book' ref tag for the 'Helen Lundeberg' book with the new link you found at 'nga.gov'; I agree it's a much better page and well done for finding it! I also added the second publisher in the 'publisher=' clause, and its location in the 'location=' clause; both publishers and their respective locations are now shown in those single clauses.
   Latest update: Kept unchanged.
3. Kept the link you had previously used for the 'Helen Lundeberg' book, because the first item that appears at that page is another book by Muchnic: 'Karl Benjamin' (2011). I therefore re-used that link to create a new 'cite book' entry in the 'Books' section under 'Bibliography'.
   Latest update: Removed, since you suggested to include only books and exclude catalogues.
4. I also added a new section for 'External links', including a link to her page at amazon.com. As you know, many articles have such a section; so, this makes the present article more complete.
   Latest update: Removed, since you suggested it was too commercial.
5. Created a new 'Education' section, to separate her education details from the 'Academic career' section. If some sources mention aspects of her early life that could be included for encyclopedic purposes, then you could consider expanding this 'Education' section with these details, then renaming it to the ubiquitous 'Early life'.
   Latest update: Reverted, since you suggested it was best to keep her schooling as an introduction of her 'Academic career'.

That's it! Thank you once again for all your great ideas about this article, and I enjoyed participating in its improvements.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 10:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

Please see 'Latest update:' add-ons, for actions taken per your latest e-mail.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Patrick Pdebee, I hereby award you the Shooting Star emblem for your brilliant, stellar work on the Suzanne Muchnic page. Bravo, Patrick! Many thanks for your contributions to our collaborative effort. I have learned so much during this process. Now, onward and upward! MusaVeneziana^(talk) 00:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MusaVeneziana; it was a pleasure to assist you.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 07:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, Forgive me for troubling you once again about this article, but I see that a section called Authority control, was added - in lieu of the External link to the Amazon online marketplace. Wikipedia, defines Authority Control as "a way of associating a unique identifier to articles on Wikipedia ...useful to disambiguate different items with similar or identical headings, as well as to establish a single standard title for an item that is commonly known by two or more titles" ? By its definition, the Authority Control does not appear to apply here in any way; these are not 'articles' and they are not 'commonly known by two or more titles.' Also, the Authority Control links lead to pages that do not give information pertinent to the author or books.
Each of Muchnic's published books are beautifully documented with title, author, date published, publisher, city of the publishing house - and the optional ISBN number - and an optional link to the web site of the publishing house, except in the case of the Lundeberg book, whose co-publishers are listed in the reference and its link leads to the esteemed library of the National Gallery of Art. Should we be willing to eliminate this section? I think having the References followed by the Categories is perfect and that in this case, less is more. /*\ MusaVeneziana^(talk) 03:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

Thank you for your latest query, and there is nothing to forgive: I am always happy to assist, if/when I'm around.

Well, on the one hand, I can quite understand your desire to keep the present article to your preferred format; however, it is now important for me to point out that the Wikipedia guidelines on article layout are quite precise, and described in the Manuel of Style article on layout, which summarizes recommended sections in its sub-section: MOS:SECTIONORDER.

In case you haven't read it yet, I would recommend that you do so and familiarize yourself with its content, which includes the Authority control template (see sub-section 'bottom matter'). In essence, the MoS guidelines on layout are what experienced editors will strive to follow as they create or improve Wikipedia articles.

This is probably also a good time to point out that, although I have given way to your preferences for the present article (see above, for 'External links'), it was for the twinned reasons of achieving consensus (so we could put this article to bed for now) and also to demonstrate flexibility. However, please bear in mind that it would be entirely permissible for any other editor(s) to modify the article's current layout in conformity with the guidelines.

In this particular case, my recommendation would be to leave the Authority control template in place, because it was added by another editor in conformity with the guidelines on layout. You may or may not be aware of the policy on edit warring, so please allow me to suggest that you read this also; many edit wars occur between editors on the basis of "I just don't like it" which, although not a Wikipedia policy per se, is a good thing to remember, especially if you intend to remain a frequent contributor to our encyclopedia. Yet another, related aspect to bear in mind is Wikipedia's policy on content ownership, to which we're all expected to adhere.

I hope this helped. Until now, I had concentrated on helping you learn the mechanics of editing, whereas today seemed focused more on policy and guidelines as they relate to your query about 'Authority control'. I am sure you'll appreciate that these policies and guidelines were devised for the benefit of the whole project.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 10:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I have now updated your greeting for me (see your entry above), to the suggested format: Dear {{U|Pdebee|Patrick}}, — that is, with my name piped inside the template, and with braces rather than brackets.

Dear Patrick, First of all, thank you for editing my salutation to you. I tried incorporating your suggestion several times before, but didn't have it quite right; somehow coding kept appearing in the finished text! Yes, example really is the way to go, and I appreciate this little edit that you did for me. As for your above response to my query about the odd addition of the Authority Control, the last perception I would want to give is that of starting a war! My suggestion regarding the Authority Control box was made after much analysis and particularly after reading the Authority Control definition; not simply "like" or "dislike". Also, I am not naive - of course I am aware that any of the worldwide volunteer editors may make a change to any article at any time, though I understand that some are sacrosanct and may not be edited.

I did look over the Wikipedia Manual of Style; it is a guide and obviously not all articles will require the same elements. I suppose one could see how many sections an article will hold, an article style that recalls to me an art historian term, "Horror Vacui" "(/ˈhɔːrər ˈvɑːkjuːaɪ/; from Latin "fear of empty space"), also kenophobia, from Greek "fear of the empty"), is the filling of the entire surface of a space or an artwork with detail." At any rate, it does seem that you have missed my point. If there must be an external link, it seems that something that imparts useful information might be good - rather than the somewhat vacuous pages now linked. One of the main stated purposes of Authority Control is to disambiguate persons that share the same name - that is to assist a researcher in locating the right person. Since Suzanne Muchnic has a unique name - if we do want to hold someone's hand (that's always nice!) and use Authority Control as a box to hold a link to guide readers, how about putting in a useful link instead, for example to all that Suzanne Muchnic has published? Maybe this is completely off base, but wouldn't the World Cat be an excellent source for that, as seen in this link? https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Suzanne+Muchnic

I have read the definition of External links in the Wikipedia Manual of Style and see that it is recommended that they not duplicate links already in the article and that the section may be replaced by a Further Reading section. Here is an example of a page with information that would definitely qualify as a beautiful little Further Reading external link category. Perhaps it is too petite for this purpose, and completely the wrong idea, but it does include a nice photograph! http://rcwg.scrippscollege.edu/alumnae-visual-arts/suzanne-muchnic-62 Lastly, Patrick, this is not a war or contest of any kind, but if it is for you, please consider yourself the hero, the winner here, and of course leave all as you wish. You are, after all, the more experienced editor. The laurel wreath is yours. /*\ MusaVeneziana^(talk) 18:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

Thank you for your response, immediately above.

I attempted to respond to your query—about considering the possible removal of the Authority control template—by explaining that it is part of an article's recommended layout. Since another editor (not me) had already inserted it, I was anxious to point out to you the danger of removing it, which might be construed, by that editor, as an attempt at edit warring. I tried to guide you to areas of policy and guidelines of which I believed, perhaps wrongly, you might have been unaware. I was trying to be as complete and didactic in my explanation as I could. If, in so doing, I have offended you or hurt your feelings in any way, then I can only apologise; as ever, my intent was to offer assistance.

By the way, there is already a 'World cat' link for Suzanne Muchnic in the 'Authority control' box, as its first entry. The point about the Authority control template is simply, and I quote:

[to link] Wikipedia articles (and user pages) to the corresponding entries in library catalogs of national libraries and other authority files all over the world. The entries typically correspond to people, book titles, and similar well-defined entities.

If you wish to add the other World cat link you mentioned (featuring her published works) in a 'Further reading' section to the article, then it is entirely your prerogative to do so, and I remain available for further assistance, whenever required.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, Oh no, please forgive me! And, you absolutely did not offend me in any way. I sincerely thought that I had seen your signature after the Authority Control addition, but now it appears there are no notes at all. I defer to your suggestion to better respect the editorial decisions of others, and I think, especially those whose editing skill so clearly far exceeds my own. This now apparently phantom editor who added in the Authority Control section mainly to list Muchnic's scant presence indexed in some international library databases must know what they're doing. By the way, I agree with you - the other World Cat reference is the better one. I am just not convinced about the relevance of the other links, or the need for an Authority Control section. What I am certain of, is that it's best I move on to another article! Thanks again for being so generous with your Wikipedia tutelage. Many thanks to you and kind regards, always. /*\ MusaVeneziana^(talk) 01:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear MusaVeneziana,

No problem at all, Musa, and I daresay you should feel empowered to add that 'Further reading' section, with the link you mentioned above; this would improve the article by adding a useful list of her books (like I had provided via the amazon.com page in the earlier 'External links' section, which we agreed to remove because you thought its format was too commercial). So, please go ahead, at your convenience, and I will assist if necessary.

The editor who added the 'Authority control' template is mentioned above, in point 2. of my post at 6:28 on 11 September 2016 (last Sunday), in which I also included a link to the diff that added the template: here; s/he added Muchnic's date of birth template in the infobox, and also added the 'Authority control' template at the bottom of the article (you need to scroll down into the diff to see it).

I will post another message at your talk page and not here, where we are expected to stay on topic, something you & I have just about managed to do so far, since we have been discussing how to improve the present article. In that next post (at your talk page), I will show you how to find out who made edits.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)