Talk:George Franklin Barber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutral

I think "George Franklin Barber (1854-1915) was one of the most popular and successful architects of the late Victorian period in America." fails our NPOV rules. Is there any evidence to back this up? Also, this appears to be a text dump, please cite some sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That statement doesn't violate NPOV - being popular and successful are objective criteria. If it said he was the best, that would have a higher degree of proof required. Tempshill 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia:Village Pump / Policy: I suspect this to be a copyvio, but I can't find anything online. Are there any architect enthusiasts who can check their books? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

None of this appears to be directly copied from any book I have, but... As to the "most popular and successful" statement, George F. Barber was certainly prolific -- though I haven't seen a comprehensive list (and I doubt such a thing exists), Cornell University's Director of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation Planning, Michael Tomlan, has stated that Barber's houses are located in all 50 states and several foreign countries. Examples have been located as far away as Japan and the Philippines. So if "prolific" translates to "popular and successful," I think this is unquestionable. In a recent book published by University of Tennessee Press (which I can't now remember the name of, since I haven't yet gotten a copy), Claudette Stager of the Tennessee Historical Commission describes Barber as the most famous architect in Tennessee at the turn of the century (or something of that sort -- I'm paraphrasing from memory). Archarin 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC). Since the NPOV dispute is still listed on the page despite the apparently disputed text being excised, I've added some of it back, in what can hopefully be considered a less objectionable form. I suppose some citations would help. Archarin 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear about how the NPOV note ever gets removed, so I've done it. If this triggers some bot to flag the article for review, I think that's all for the best. Basically, my take on this is that the NPOV dispute was initiated two years ago over the specific wording of one statement, which has long since been rewritten. If there is another basis for continuing the NPOV, I don't see it. Archarin (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection, there is a piece near the end talking about Shaw and Queen Anne Style that seems really familiar. I'll check on it later. Archarin 05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)