Talk:Ed Krupp

Krupp and Abell

Krupp's year as a student at SSP is shown in both the testimonial reference and the 50th anniversary description.

Making a connection between Krupp and Abell: The Routly oral history shows that Abell was there in 1961, while the other sources identify Krupp as a '61 alum. I'm adding an additional source that shows both Krupp in "Class of '61" and Abell as "Academic Director '60-'83".

The new source also lists Krupp as a 17-time guest lecturer (and he has done more since, including the 50th anniversary). —RichardMathews (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Routly oral history shows that Abell was there in 1961, while the other sources identify Krupp as a '61 alum."=clear WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, I added a single source that lists both as being there in 1961. What is missing is the knowledge that until just the last few years SSP was a single-classroom environment, so every teacher works with every student (since 2003, it is a single classroom at each of two campuses). In 1961, as in 1959, there were just 26 students. A single source says Abell taught in 1961 and Krupp was a student in 1961, which means that Abell taught Krupp.

• "...both as being there in 1961" does not mean that one taught the other. To demonstrate the latter, you had to bring in other sources to demonstrate "single-classroom environment"/"there were just 26 students". This is WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have private but verifiable sources that confirm with 100% certainty that Abell taught Krupp at SSP. All it takes is a phone call or e-mail to SSP. Would you prefer using such a source? I'm trying to stick to published sources, though those come just slightly off of directly saying that Abell taught Krupp, rather saying that Abell taught and Krupp studied. I am not making a huge leap, and I can prove that the missing piece is correct.

• WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (my emphasis) What you have to "stick to" is what published sources (and only published sources) explicitly state -- not to what you can infer from the sources (the latter being WP:SYNTH). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I really think it makes a nice hook to the story that adds continuity to show the connection between the roles of SSP, UCLA, and Griffith in Krupp's life. The point is to not just be an ad for SSP but to show how this played an important part in Krupp's career. BTW, Abell was also a director of Griffith, but I don't know what connection existed between Abell and Krupp in that regard. Here I agree that it would be inappropriate to synthesize and conclude something we don't know for sure.--RichardMathews (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• And I think you are breaking WP policy in order to make a fairly minor point. You can probably state that 'Krupp attended the SSP in 1961,[ref] at which Abell taught[ref]' without synthesis, just not 'Abell taught Krupp' there without a single source explicitly stating this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article is poorly sourced and poorly organized (I tried to improve on the latter yesterday). What is the source for Krupp's awards? How do we know that Krupp is "noted" as a "specialist"? How do we know he wrote the listed books? While it is good that you are making sure I have good sources, I do feel I am being held to a higher standard than were the previous authors of this article. Let's work on improving those rather than quibbling over this.

• I would suggest that you ask User:CJLL Wright, who appears to have written most of the material. My role to date has been restricted to trying to stop poorly/un-sourced material getting in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(PS -- your sig appears to be broken, in that it lacks a terminal "</small>". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) )

I don't believe I have ever changed that. How would I revert that to the default?--RichardMathews (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating Dr. Krupp's WP

I am in the process of updating Dr. Krupp's WP. I would be interested in any material that is relevant but not yet covered on the current page. Shortsword (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Shortsword (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed Krupp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160418162238/http://media.skyandtelescope.com/documents/Doomsday2012.pdf to http://media.skyandtelescope.com/documents/Doomsday2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)