Talk:Gertrude Stein

Questioning the neutrality of the Critical reception section

By my count, in the "Critical reception" section there are nine negative reviews of Stein's works, one positive, and one neutral. It has been this way for nearly 10 years now. I don't know how to go about finding sources that might reflect the reality better (she is still widely studied in academia which would be unlikely if 90% of the world detested her as much as indicated in that section). Should this section be trimmed until a more neutral editor can provide less negative sources? SQGibbon (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception is meant to be critical, is it not? If you believe the article needs more neutrality, perhaps suggesting a generalized "reception" section would be more appropriate. Personally, I don't have a problem with the level of criticism presented in the article (and I believe treating it as a statistic is heavy-handed and 'agendistic'), but I do think it's rather bloated. Any famous person, especially someone radical like Stein, has plenty of people who are unhappy with them. Additionally, being studied is not a good indicator of virtue. 50.247.181.41 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic criticism is not the same thing as piling on someone. I get that the words are the same, but in context they have different meanings. Academia criticism is meant to explain a work while sometimes discussing the positive and negative aspects of the work. Being critical in the sense you are using is only meant to express disdain for a work. The former is what we want in Wikipedia (and any encyclopedia), the latter doesn't belong here at all.

"Personally, I don't have a problem with the level of criticism presented in the article"

Ok, but does the section match Wikipedia guidelines and policies? It seems pretty heavily biased.

"I believe treating it as a statistic is heavy-handed and 'agendistic'"

Almost all of the negative criticism was inserted by a single editor who clearly had an agenda. All I'm trying to do is fix that initial wrong.

"Any famous person, especially someone radical like Stein, has plenty of people who are unhappy with them"

I have no problem with listing negative responses to Stein, that is fair and what Wikipedia is all about.

"being studied is not a good indicator of virtue"

I never said anything about virtue or quality. What I did say is that given how much she is studied, there must be plenty of people (including critics) who like her work and certainly more than the 10% that the previous editor implied by how they edited the section. If it really is only 10% then we need a source for this to explain the current disparity in that section. Otherwise, we should take our lead from other articles where both sides are generally presented in a fair manner with at least an appearance of equal treatment. As it stands now, that section is heavily biased. That is not how Wikipedia operates.

"I do think it's rather bloated"

That is another good argument for trimming the section down. SQGibbon (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I trimmed the section down. It still has negative view but is better balanced/more neutral. SQGibbon (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

legacy

There is a reference to the "Gertrude Stein Democratic Club" at Muriel Bowser. Spicemix (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo of alleged "childhood home of Gertrude Stein"

There is no known evidence in land records, utility records, etc. that the building pictured is the building where Gertrude Stein was born. Professional title examiners have searched County land records, as have persons in the business of validating such historical data. No known documents have been produced that validate that Gertrude Stein was born in the building in the photo. The plaque on the wall of the building is an artifact, attached approximately 70 years or more after Stein's birth date, at a time when the neighborhood was attempting renovation, having been virtually abandoned by its original owners. If someone can document the validity of the claim that Stein was born in the building in the photo, the evidence should be produced. Sapienttwo (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stop vandalizing the article It's referenced...Modernist (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits aren't vandalism. Please assume good faith. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by "it's referenced'? Sapienttwo (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Check this out: Help:Referencing for beginners...Modernist (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that.

  The linked material explains "reference" but not the application to "it's".

  Specifically, how is the photo of a building alleged to be where GS was born "referenced" to verify that claim? Sapienttwo (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  • The photo that you deleted was referenced by this link: Gertrude Stein house...Modernist (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for the courtesy in supplying link to the Allegheny City Society.

    Was that link embedded in the deleted caption under the photo, or in footnotes, or elsewhere? Sapienttwo (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it was linked as a reference to the photo. That's why I returned the photo to the article...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks another time.

  Do you mind showing me where in the text of the Wikipedia article the link was embedded? Sapienttwo (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm gonna put the photo back and the reference is at the end of the caption...Modernist (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Click on the number 10 at the caption end; that goes to the link...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. Sapienttwo (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)