Talk:Clara H. Hasse

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a part of the wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian and it is in process. &mdash; Digitaleffie (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, maybe I'm missing something here, but "assistant horticulturist and botanist"? I'm just not understanding how that's notable. There are plenty of people employed by the USDA, and we don't make Wiki pages for all of them. What's so special about Ms. Hasse?JoelWhy (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because she is a notable American horticulturist and botanist. Needs expansion. Don't delete. &mdash; Digitaleffie (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is she notable? So far nothing in the article says she is. Eeekster (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Death year may be wrong
From The Michigan alumnus, Volume 33, p. 284 :


 * "CLARA H. Hasse, '03, died suddenly, October 10, 1926, at her home in Muskegon, Michigan. Since her graduation from the University in 1903 Miss Hasse had been employed as a pathologist in the Bureau of Plant Pathology"

Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and amended the article per these dates. Information about her is very scarce. I'm not sure how much more this article will be able to be expanded in the short to medium term.Voceditenore (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with lichens and fungi
I have changed the assertion that her research focused on lichens and fungi. It was referenced solely to:

That is simply a library database, with an extremely brief entry and no works listed. It also has the clear disclaimer:
 * "This is a new (2011) interface over recently migrated data. Both the interface and the data are under review".

They seem to have confused C. H. Hasse with H. E. Hasse (Hermann Edward Hasse, 1836-1915) who was renowned as an expert on lichen and fungi. . There is no evidence of Clara Hasse having published anything in that area or even being mentioned in any of the literature pertaining to it. As much as I hate to besmirch my alma mater, Harvard's library system almost certainly got it wrong when they "migrated" their data. On the whole, using library catalogue databases like this as references for major assertions is not a good idea unless backed up by other evidence. They can be prone to significant errors. Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for expanding the article
If anyone can get hold of the full copy of The Michigan Alumnus, Volume 33 (1926) it might be possible to add more to the article. From the snippet view (first 2 sentences) on Google books, it appears that it might contain a longish obituary. Also, she and her female colleagues at the Department of Agriculture are mentioned in Margaret W. Rossiter, "'Women's Work' in Science, 1880-1910", Isis, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 381-398 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/230118 (requires subscription access, which I don't have). Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was written as part of an edit-a-thon
This article was started by a new editor as part of an edit-a-thon called She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon held at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. This could very well be the first article that the editor who started it has ever written, so please be kind, educating and please consider incorporating them into the editing process. We look forward to your contributions in helping to expand content on women in science on Wikipedia, and helping to create a welcome environment for all editors! This note has been placed on all articles related to the event! Sarah (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, sometimes, that Wikipedia's paradigm loses its bearings and drifts into shoal waters on the issues of notability and on quantity of article content. I've seen some sparring being done in reference to other articles on WP and it strikes me that such challenges often come up because one editor, having no familiarity with the subject of an article, challenges it without really trying to apply some critical thought to the action he/she is taking.  Sure, some articles are very short.  Does that 'necessarily' mean that they are stubs in need of expansion or deletion?  Some articles are a bit "short" of cites and external links.  Does that mean they are about people/things/events which are not notable?  I'm not willing to answer in the affirmative to either of these questions.  I'm not sure that there are any bright lines we can rely on.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
I motion that this article should be deleted. Subject is not notable. Wikipedia has too many vanity articles and articles created by corporations or editathons which are poor quality and COI. However I wont start the process myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.190.47 (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Synth
I have read most of the above. It appears that treatments with fungicides failed, as did treatments with bactericide. The removal and burning of diseased parts of plants also failed, so the method resorted to was burning the entirety diseased trees, in the summer of 1914. It's not suggested that any of these methods were introduced because of Hesse's work, and indeed the most effective, burning, seems to have been arisen on pragmatic grounds.

On this basis I have removed the above claim, which seems sweeping. If further evidence is foudn, or if I have missed something apposite in Wolf' paper, please feel free to reinstate (with suitable reference or quote). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC).


 * I found a ref, which the above looks like a close paraphrase of. I have inserted it along with a quotation.  It would be good to know what the methods were - there is some information in the Citrus canker article, but it's not clear what was introduced when.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC).