Talk:First Presbyterian Church (Davenport, Iowa)

architect info incorrect
The information about the architects for current church building for First Presbyterian Church of Davenport is incorrect. I am working on a brochure for an upcoming event in which the church is participating, and in the process of having my work proofed, uncovered the error. Prior to this, I had also assumed the sanctuary was designed by F. G. Clausen and Park Burrows also. I live in the first structure designed by Clausen here in Davenport, so have a special interest in his work. According to architect John Gere who is one of the principals for SGGM Architects & Interior Designers, PC, the firm who purchased the archives of the Clausen firm, a man who has researched these archives and is also a member of the 1st Pres. congregation, the firm who designed the Romanesque sanctuary was out of Galesburg, Illinois. His email to me is as follows.

"This has been a rather confusing item for some time. We have documentation, through church newsletters and bulletins, that the Galesburg firm of Gottschalk & Beadle in fact designed the original church, which was built in 1897-1898.  There is a church that is almost identical on the Galesburg Square (Central Congregational Church) that was also designed by the same firm.  It was completed a year before First Presbyterian.  Please check out churchfromthesquare.org  There is a link to “Our Historic Building” that mentions the architect.  Neither that church, nor ours have even prints of the original drawings.  I know that Wikipedia attributes Clausen & Burrows as designers of the buildings."

These errors date back to the 1980s when Davenport has historical surveys done. It was a Herculean task, and there were inevitable errors. Another is the attribution for the Kahl Building; it is credited as the work of a Davenport architect when, in fact, the designer was Rapp & Rapp of Chicago, according to Mr. Gere.

Mr. Gere went on to say in his email:

"The Temple & Burrows firm (also Parke Burrows) did design the Christian Education Building Addition at First Presbyterian in 1923. Burrows was a member and elder of the church at the time of that project.  And, we do have prints of the drawings, that we have used for reference a number of times.

I joined the firm of Charles Richardson & Associates in 1969, when I graduated from college. This firm’s founder was F.G. Clausen. Clausen did partner with Park Burrows from 1897 until 1904, so there are several buildings the two collaborated as designers. Our files are very organized and catalogued, so I do have physical proof on very many projects. There was an unfortunate occurrence in the 1950’s when a number of original drawings were given to building owners, or destroyed, but the file cards and project lists still include them as completed projects."MarionMeginnis (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi MarionMeginnis, thank you for commenting. I and other wikipedia editors do want to get correct information out, and don't want to be stating incorrect info.  It is invaluable that you can provide more specific information and sources that should go towards fixing the information presented here and in some related Wikipedia articles.


 * The information that was/is in the article is probably all based on secondary or tertiary sources that are viewed as generally reliable, but which contain errors from time to time. You seem to have primary source information that shows the reported info is wrong.  In Wikipedia in general, the intent is to avoid original research but rather to report what is the general, received, established knowledge on a topic, rather than fringe/new/non-accepted views.  It is generally preferred to use secondary sources that state the generally known info.  In order to avoid fringe theories being "pushed" into the encyclopedia.   But policy is that primary sources can in fact be used, with care, and I think this is done often in non-controversial areas.


 * It seems to me here that you have primary sources that show factual error in the secondary sources, and in my opinion then your primary sources should be used and cited. I don't think there is any controversy here, it sounds like the secondary sources were just lacking facts that you have available.  So, thanks, for raising this!  I expect that your information can and should be used.  Next, how, and what of your primary sources (church newsletters or whatever), can be cited instead? -- do  ncr  am  23:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Further, actually, I suggest you proceed by boldly making the changes you feel are necessary in the article. Follow wp:Be bold!  :)  Please do try to include indication of your sources, with your new information.  For example, use "ref" and "/ref" tags before and after, to make a footnote with the source information, as in: .  And we and others can sort out further improvements to format it better and so on, as necessary, later. -- do  ncr  am  21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)