Talk:Florine Stettheimer

Birth date
Bloemink biography gives birth date as August 19, contrary to Britannica which states August 29. I have changed it to the former but not sure how or if to cite such basic information. Hoping no controversy on this point. Artchivist1 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * When I wrote the only extant biography of Florine Stettheimer in 1995 (The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, Yale University Press) I met with (and remain the only person who is living and did so) the only living family members and the family lawyer Joseph Solomon who knew Florine Stettheimer herself. They discussed her with me and showed me a number of family papers, genealogical charts, and photographs, and gave me her birth date as August 19th. As with so many inaccurate statements made about Stettheimer, I have no idea where the date of August 29th came from, but family records date Florine Stettheimer's birth as August 19th, 1871 in Rochester, New York. --Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara Bloemink--Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC) January 6 2019


 * So the article is ok on this particular point? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I think Barbara is saying it should be the 19th. Barbara, your personal conversations and family papers aside, do you have a reliable source for the August 19th date?  I checked, and, wherever the date might've come from, Encyclopedia Britannica does report it as August 29.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread. If 19th is from/in The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, I think it's reasonable to go with that, I think we prefer WP:SECONDARY to WP:TERTIARY. At the very least we should have both. Give me a pagenumber for "The Life" (no help from g-books) and I'll add it myself. Unless there's an argument I'm unaware of that "The Life" should not be considered generally reliable? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jessica’s taking off all my changes to Stettheimer entry
The Florine Stettheimer entry in Wikipedia was filled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. I am the acknowledged scholar authority on the artist Florine Stettheimer and in 1995 wrote my YALE University PhD and published the first and only accurate (still) biography of the artists life and examination of her work (locating, identifying and dating every extant work). It is still considered the primary work on the artist and is referenced only all serious scholars writing on the artist. However there have been many who have continued to promote many inaccurate and fantastic “myths” about her since her death in 1944 and whoever wrote the Wikipedia article included many of these inaccuracies and outright lies about the artist. I spent several hours correcting these- such as that she wanted her paintings buried with her (she wanted her work donated to museums!), that she rarely exhibited (she exhibited over 46+x at major museums), etc. I carefully my 1995 YALE Press Stettheimer biography with these changes as well as a number of other articles and books i’ve Written on the artist. I did however made a few mistakes on Wikipedia format that I knew I had to learn and then go back and correct. However the Wikipedia Jessica emailed me that she completely eradicated All my changes to the text and it is now completely back the the text with all of the inaccurate and untruthful information about the artist and her work! Wikipedia is relied on by millions of people who do research and believe they are reading the “truth” not LIES in the articles. There are currently lies in the Stettheimer article which I painstakingly corrected and Jessica eliminates without even checking with me - when if she had first checked any of the Stettheimer literature on Google she would have clearly seen that I am the authority and have written the most and the only authoritative biography on the artist. Is this what you want Wikipedia to be? Barbarabloemink (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I explained my removal of your edits quite thoroughly on your talk page, and it's more appropriately discussed there, but I'm leaving a note here in the hopes you will see it. I welcome the thoughts of other editors on this, but I think they will concur that adding a ton of claims with no sources, or sourced to a not-yet-published book, is not appropriate. (Your edits are still retrievable within the page history, by the way.)
 * I am happy to work with you on improving this article, and I hope you can see we have that goal in common. However, it needs to be done within Wikipedia's guidelines (and with awareness of conflict-of-interest issues). Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jessica, for the note. Barbara asked for help at WP:EAR, and I responded there with what I hope is some helpful information.  I hope you and others can work together to make this page even better!  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

January 5, 2019
I don't know how to make this clearer: I am the only one who actually met with Stettheimer's lawyer whom she knew and who made up her will; and with her last living family members who knew her and kept her family records who have now all passed away during the time I was writing the first actual biography of her life. For over 40 years MANY inaccurate and actually FALSE statements, dates, and lies have been written about her by many people INCLUDING MUSEUM CURATORS who have not done proper research or FACT CHECKING, which I CAN PROVIDE PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL TO VALIDATE! including her proper birthdate. I JUST DON"T UNDERSTAND HOW TO PROPERLY FORMAT WIKIPEDIA"S FORMATTING AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN!!!! SO IF YOU WANT A FACTUAL ACCURATE ENTRY ON THIS ARTIST, SOMEONE HAS TO HELP ME EDIT THE INFORMATION AND INCLUDE MY FACTUAL SOURCES - SOME OF WHICH COME FROM ARTICLES AND THE BIOGRAPHY I WROTE WHICH ALL ACCREDITED SCHOLARS SITE IN THEIR WRITING ON STETTHEIMER!!! AND ALLOW ME TO TAKE OUT ALL THE INACCURATE LIES AND THOSE SOURCES THAT STATE THEM! --Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)BARBARA BLOEMINK
 * Please, read the responses to your query at Editor Assistance. Click on this blue link to see those.  I think they will help you understand a bit better what has been happening.  I'm sorry you are feeling frustrated, but people are trying to help.  Please understand that everyone wants the best possible, most accurate, Stettheimer article; but it has to be in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, and it's going to have to be a joint effort.  Pay special attention to what has been said about sources.  I think everyone by now understands that you are a preeminent, perhaps the preeminent, Stettheimer scholar.  That gives you excellent insight into the revisions that need to be made to the article - but perhaps even more importantly, you may have a better idea than anyone else what published, reliable third party sources will support the things that you want to say.  I suggest starting a thread on the talk page right here listing the four or five most important things you would revise, and laying out their sources.  Don't change the article - put it here at the Talk page.  Forget formatting.  If you do that then probably, someone can weave it into the article.  Also, if it's helpful, all of the edits you made are still in the history of the article, and can be retrieved - I am not sure they can be simply reinstalled, but at least you don't have to retype them.  Would learning about that be helpful?  JohnInDC (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please listen to JohnInDC and the other advice you received. Btw, your talkpage is at User talk:Barbarabloemink. WP:SHOUTING rarely helps anything. Sources that will easily be accepted (generally) are books like The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, and other stuff that is considered WP:RELIABLE SOURCES on WP (context matters, though). WP:PRIMARY SOURCES have a very limited use here, but we are fond of university press and similar. This article could probably be made a WP:GOOD ARTICLE in time, but if you want to contribute here, you have to adapt to the strange ways of WP. Help:Referencing for beginners will be of use if you want to make a lasting impact on this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

.--Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara BloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)January 6 2019


 * Thanks. Now - pause to catch your breath and let’s see how well this is going to work. That’s a lot to digest and we need to figure out if this is workable! JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Barbara, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to attempt a complete rewrite from here. Can you focus on the specific factual concerns you’ve got? Let’s star5 with the plain errors. JohnInDC (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC I don't know how else to do this because if you compare just the "summary" intro I wrote to the existing entry on Stettheimer, you will see how uninformative/not-specific to Stettheimer herself/HER work, the existing entry is...so it has to be entirely re-written in order to explain who SHE is and why her artwork is significant - not just that she and her sisters held some salon afternoons! If that were the case, there would not be three major museum exhibitions on her work in the last 4 years...It is impossible to conceive that in the future, only "alternate facts" will matter in popular source materials that most people use for research such as Wikipedia. I am attempting to correct that with actual, true FACTS, I am the ONLY PERSON LIVING ANYMORE who has the primary materials and has done the research and spent the painstaking time going through all the primary materials, aural interviews, records, archives and archival photographs, to gather those facts and check them against false statements that have been written about the artist. SO please allow me to ensure that the Wikipedia source entry on this one person is accurate as well as well-written and comprehensive/useful to anyone looking for information on her!!!


 * Please can't someone who knows something about 20th-century art history weigh in here - or because you seem to be so willing to be helpful and considerate JohnInDC, would someone please allow me to write a Florine Stettheimer Entry in Wikipedia? Please contact Yale & Columbia Universities where all her papers are stored, and the curators at the Metropolitan Museum and MOMA and ask them to verify that I should be the person writing the entry...then just allow me to write it, and I will cite 6-10 major other scholars and writers' "reliable, published sources" who do the research and base their writing on accurate facts! (in addition to my own biography and articles on Stettheimer.) Why is this so hard??? Barbarabloemink (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara BloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC) January 8 2019


 * I was wondering the same thing! Several other editors and I have explained that Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable, verifiable, published sources.  You've complained at length about the gross factual errors in this article.  I've asked that you point them out, specifically, with proper references so that they can be fixed.  What source says something different?  What source calls into question the reliability of another?  That kind of a modest start will tell us whether this kind of collaboration is viable.  Rewriting the entire article from scratch with the tone and emphasis that you think it warrants is an undertaking of a much higher order.  It requires that one or another editor with limited or no knowledge of the subject area read what you've written, ascertain whether it's written in a proper Neutral Point of View style and encyclopedic tone, see whether each of the references lines up with the proposition made for them, and then compare the new version to the existing version to ascertain whether or not there's something there that can be or should be salvaged.  Look - we're all volunteers here, every last one of us.  We do this in our spare time.  It means that sometimes (heck, often) things don't get done as well or as quickly as they might if we were working for money.  Wikipedia editing can be complex, particularly for the newcomer, and you've said it seems to be a bit beyond you, so I'm trying to figure out a way where the Stettheimer article can be improved, at least incrementally, by stripping it of outright misinformation, in chunks that are modest enough that people who do know their way around the editing page will be likely to undertake them on your behalf.  (E.g. I personally am not willing to vet a complete rewrite; and I would note that no one else has leapt into the breach.)  Again, I would start with the factual issues.  Let's see how that goes.  Then I would suggest picking a section - a single small section within the article - and rewriting that.  Maybe "Legacy", I don't know.  See how that goes.  Then work up to the bigger pieces.  Then rewrite the summary intro, which in Wikipedia is supposed to be a (largely) unreferenced summary of what the rest of the article says.  Finally, I guess I should make the explicit point that, no matter what we may do with this article in the end, there's not a moment's guarantee that someone else may not come along and revise it.  They may not; but they may, and if what they do seems like an improvement somehow, and if it is properly referenced etc., then the changes will stand.  Do you see what I'm trying to do?  JohnInDC (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. We'll see whether that bears fruit.  I feel obliged though to reiterate that whatever you may happen to write - as good as it may turn out to be - it will not be cast in stone here or indeed even etched in dried mud.  If you want to write the definitive biography of Stettheimer, this isn't the place for it.  Not only because the article will be subject to change by any other editor the moment you hit the "Publish changes" button (there's no such thing as "once and for all" here), but because - more fundamentally - Wikipedia is not a source of information.  It isn't the place for any kind of original scholarship or synthesis or analysis.  (See WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS for more on that.)  Rather we take what has already been written and published, external to the project, and extract pertinent information and weave it into a kind of digest form.  And then apart from that, the Wikipedia voice - the tone of the articles - is in the end neutral and, sigh, pretty bland.  If you don't feel like reading a couple of dozen articles to gain this sense, you should read WP:VOICE and WP:TONE which lay out general principles.  What you've written above may make an excellent introduction to Stettheimer and her work for - I don't know, you tell me - a catalog or collection of her works - but it misses the mark here (IMHO).  I think in the end you may need to adjust your expectations about what is feasible here.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Back over at Editor Assistance Requests, someone suggested taking a look at Expert_editors. I don't know if you have had time to do that, but I suggest that you do peruse it when you get a chance.  It reiterates, really, better than how I've done, several of the points I've tried to make above.  It's quite short and shouldn't take but a few minutes.  The observations and advice are quite sound, I think.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * OK JohnInDc thank you - I have read Wikipedia:Expert-editors and it is very helpful. I AM going to write a full entry on Stettheimer on the Editing Talk: Stettheimer page and greatly cut/refine it as per the Expert-editor suggestions, and then ask you and any other senior editors at Wikipedia to review it, edit the Reliable, Neutral Sources I cite throughout the entry to place them correctly, edit it as necessary, and REPLACE the current entry as it is "unreliable" and does not accuratly reflect the work and significance of the artist any more than an entry on Donald Trump beginning with writing about his father's real estate empire as one of the most central things about him, reflects on his life significance. ok?  Barbarabloemink (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara Bloemink January 11 2019


 * I would still encourage you to break this task down into smaller, more digestible parts - one, to help you learn a bit about proper tone, citation, etc., to allow you to bring a more Wikipedia-centric perspective to your efforts over time; and two and again, to make it more likely that other editors - the ones who'll be doing the dirty work of cleaning up, formatting, markup and the rest - will be more likely to undertake the task. I don't think it's coincidence that the couple of other editors who earlier had stepped in to help have fallen silent on this page.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In whatever you decide to do however, you must bear in mind that you are not writing a new biography, or an essay, or a retrospective. You're writing a straightforward, just-the-facts compilation of what others have already written about Stettheimer.  Avoid vivid or colorful phrasing, sweeping statements, theme sentences and then evidence to support the theme - all of that.  The article isn't here to establish or prove anything about its subject.  It's here to report and weave together what others have already said about her.  And, yes, a lot of what has been said about her has been said by you - so you're going to have to proceed very carefully to ensure that what you produce reflects the views of the multiplicity of sources and not just the Barbara Bloemink point of view.  Extensively citing one's own work - particularly in the wholesale rewrite that you're suggesting - is a fraught business.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also you need to be prepared to say why a source that gives every general indication of reliability - you mentioned the Whitney Museum before - isn't reliable. It won't be enough to cite your own work and assert, "the other is just wrong" - unless, I suppose, your own work also explains why that is so.  In writing this, you aren't "Barbara Bloemink".  You are someone who knows a lot about what many historians and scholars (including this Barbara Bloemink) have said about Stettheimer, and someone who is therefore in a good position to work them all into a single coherent comprehensive article.  And, as a mere "Wikipedia editor" you are unqualified to rank the relative reliability of presumptively reliable sources (or dismiss them outright).  JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC - crap I edited out a lot of my "entry text" above and when I entered "publish" it didn't deleted it all! what a pain, so I guess I'll have to do it again. Wikipedia is very unyieldy.. Anyway in terms of the Whitney, my point is some junior curator who wrote the text copied an old unreliable, often quoted book that said Stettheimer was too shy to exhibit during her lifetime, when IN FACT, there are 46 exhibition catalogs and listings from major museums, including the Whitney Museum Biennial and the first Moma Retrospective for any Woman Artist in the 1930s that show Stettheimer exhibited at least 1 work in every major exhibition during her 44 years of mature art-making!!!!! so when I say I need my entry substituted for the current one and the sources quoted taken out and substituted for the many other reliable factual sources (of which many I put in are not me!) that's why. It really is not about my ego here but in service of facts and accuracy (I am writing a new biography of her so your point of shortening this entry is very valid and I am trying to do so)Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara Bloemink January 11 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me make another suggestion - quickly. Rather than edit here on the Talk page, do it here:  User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox.  I'll say more in a moment but I want you to stop editing your text on this page.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. That page is your "sandbox".  It's a subpage of your own user account.  You can get to it from the top of any Wikipedia page - see "sandbox"?  You can edit there to your heart's content and not put the Talk page contents here at risk.  Also other editors won't be getting constant alerts that this page is being changed.  More in a second.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So anyhow. In your own sandbox you can add text, experiment with formatting, learn little tricks - all without disrupting or breaking the actual encyclopedia.  You should continue the editing of your article - which I've copied over bodily from here - in that place.  A couple of things.  You can hit "preview" next to "publish" to see how what you just did will look.  Also, if you screw up badly, go to the top of that page and hit "history".  There you will see all the edits ever made to that page.  You can "undo" your last edit if you mess up.  You can also recover text from a prior version by just clicking on the date of that version.  Nothing is ever lost here.  It's just a little trick to learning how to retrieve it.  Helpful?  JohnInDC (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC - Its wonderful BUT - once I have it edited down and as neutral as possible (I am using the Georgia O'Keeffe page as a guide as they were equally considered significant during their lives) how do I get Editors to Wikipedia Edit and Approve it and Replace the Current Stettheimer entry with it? thanks so very much for this and your time JohnInDC! Barbarabloemink (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 11 2019
 * Come back to this page and let people know when you've done what you can with it. What may happen next is that one of the more energetic of us will go to your sandbox (just tell everyone "It's in my sandbox") where they'll look at it, and maybe start converting your sources to properly-formatted references, and begin to evaluate it as a proper article.  They can edit it in that place, and as they do it'll begin to look more the way it needs to.  So then maybe they come back here and report on what they've done, and invite others to look in; and when it gets to a stage where it seems like a direct swap is a viable idea, they'll come back here and see if anyone has any other thoughts, and if it all looks good then they'll just do it.  Or, possibly, they'll do themselves what I've been urging you to do, which is port over sections piecemeal if one or another change appears to be straightforward, until the thing is done, or until they've reduced the undertaking to the bits people may be having trouble understanding or agreeing on.  It's not impossible, but it's unlikely, that any editor here is going to take what you write, and patch up the formatting parts, and then move it over wholesale in place of this article without talking about it first.  First, it's a collaborative project, so people like to collaborate; also, if the thing has been hashed out here and the consensus seems to be "yeah, okay, let's do it" then the swap is going to be easier to defend against latecomers who might not understand what just happened.  Check out WP:Consensus for why I think it'll go that way (that is, um, a bit slowly).  JohnInDC (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GREAT - I am HAPPY if my entry is put on the Stettheimer page and then others ADD to it, etc. just so long as they don't add back material that goes back to one specific source from a 1960 book where he admitted he "made up" and "exaggerated" things about the artist because he didn't really know her but found her delightful...and people keep quoting his "fantasies" since then rather than reading what her friends and she actually wrote during her lifetime that happened or she said herself! Anyway I'll do exactly what you say and hope for the best. You are terrific and I can't thank you enough for your patience and time. Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 12 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To Editors: please review the revised Florine Stettheimer Entry: User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox.
 * 1) Please accept my apology for any earlier frustrations I've expressed with my inability to format/understand Wikipedia's format, and understand that 20 years after the artist Florine Stettheimer died, a book was published by someone who admitted in the text that he "made up and exaggerated" items about her because he though she was so delightful and eccentric. Unfortunately since then, many art writers, critics, curators have repeated and published articles that repeat those inaccuracies and exaggerations as Facts! As one of the only scholars who "rediscovered" the artist in 1995 through writing her first factual biography, I've spent the last decade writing articles refuting this "alternate facts" which have marginalized Stettheimer and kept her from realizing her significance in art history. But by going to the primary sources from the years when she was actually alive, and her own writing, I have reliable sources (which I provide in the entry in my Sandbox) which are true and factual. Given the open nature of contributions/sources on Wikipedia, it is difficult for a scholar who is the primary expert on someone as I am on Florine Stettheimer, to ensure that future readers/scholars/interested students etc. are reading true, factual information - which is my only goal in writing the Stettheimer entry as completely and carefully as I have. In any event, I would be very very grateful if you would read, edit, fix/format the Florine Stettheimer entry in my Sandbox, and replace the one that is currently on the Florine Stettheimer page in Wikipedia - which I began fixing, but still is woefully incorrect and in some cases, has false information. Thank you! in advance for your time, efforts, and consideration. Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 13, 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC I have written an entry according to the O'Keeffe entry on Wikipedia on Stettheimer in the User: Barbarabloemink/sandbox as you kindly suggested, as they were equally well-known during their life-time and Stettheimer is going through a major revival. And above I asked Editors to please review/edit it a few days ago, but so far no one has taken me up on it. Is there another page where I can request that someone be kind enough to review it so that I can have a far fuller, more accurate entry, with the false statements and sources taken out, put in Wikipedia for Stettheimer? (I found out from a professor who teaches a course that one of her students wrote the entry - she can confirm that I am the "expert" and she had me speak at a conference at her university on Stettheimer last year!) Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 15 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll have to think about another place to ask for help. In the meantime let me suggest that you let the article stand for itself.  Credentials, qualifications, back stories, anecdotes - they're beside the point.  The article is suitable, or it isn't.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

added link to sandbox draft text above, to aid with navigation. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have completed the factual accurate information on the Stettheimer entry in User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox including prioritizing why she and her work are significant, taking out the inaccurate and untrue information, adding a great deal more complete information and more primary sources (her writings, diaries and other major solo exhibitions on her work internationally) and Ask Wikipedia Editors here, and on WikiProject Women Artists/ Women.Wikipedia.org/wiki..../Worklist to please read the entry on User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox, edit it according to Wikipedia format, and hopefully replace it with the current incorrect/untruthful/incomplete entry on the artist so that others may subsequently add to a factual, accurate Stettheimer entry and learn about her from factual, accurate information and primary sources into the future.  I would greatly appreciate any assistance in making this happen. Thank you in advance. Barbarabloemink (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Barbarabloemink . January 19 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've done my best to wikify your proposed new version of the article at User:Barbarabloemink/sandbox. All the best, Vexations (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much! I am so very grateful to you for putting my Stettheimer entry in my User Sandbox in the proper Wikipedia format - especially all the footnotes...I added the citation about the 2nd nude self-portrait by a woman...actually Susanna and the Elders isn't a self-portrait according to art historians. However you are right, Paola Modersohn-Becker is the first woman to paint a self-portrait but the two you cite are only 1/2 nude. She did, however, paint two fully nude self-portraits that have only been exhibited rarely (a few years ago they were shown in a retrospective of her work in Europe) but they are still with her standing holding a bowl of rounded fruit (a metaphor for her fertility and echoing her breasts) in the traditional "male presentation pose." These were a decade before Stettheimer who painted only the second fully nude self-portrait by a woman. However, Stettheimer's is a fully "woman's gaze" - very aware and feminist.) I still have the major issue of trying to get a Wikipedia editor to read the entry, see that it is far more comprehensive than the existing one, has many more sources, both primary and secondary, and have someone Replace my entry with the Stettheimer existing Wikipedia entry which still contains actual lies/untruths about her, sources that state those "alternate facts" and leave out why her work is significant and innovative. Are you able to consider doing that? In any event Thank you again! Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 21 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll fix the citation you added where I inserted the citation needed and brought up the earlier nudes. I thought that, as an academic, you might find the Harvard-style citations more familiar, but they are a bit more difficult to get right. I'm happy to help with those. As for the proposed rewrite of the article, I'd have some suggestions, but I'll focus on formatting and sources first. Would you mind if I add the illustrations from the current article? Vexations (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I would be very grateful if you would add the illustrations - if you could add at least the Nude Self-Portrait, Spring Sale at Bendel's or Portrait of Myself, Asbury Park South, and at least one of the Cathedral paintings, that would be amazing! I can get the rights from the owners if you need them...This will Only work of course if I can convince an editor to replace my entry completely with all the sources and illustrations with the current one so it reflects who she was and why she and her work are significant and worth including and emphasizing for readers into the future! Thank you so very much for all this work on this. Barbarabloemink (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink January 22 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Impressive!
, are you done for now? I'll re-read the article, but want to wait until you're finished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to take another look at the lead, and make sure there's nothing in there that isn't in the article. Feel free to work on it. I'd like to work toward a consistent style of citation. If I'm really going to make a big change and need a chunk of time to do so I'll put in use on it. Vexations (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Kudos to you and, who I hope will stay on WP and edit other stuff too. Personally I've never bothered to learn the difference between an Oxford style citation and my elbow, but consistent style of citation is desirable, especially if someone is thinking WP:GOOD ARTICLE and/or WP:DYK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , "On seeing these paintings in the 1960s, Andy Warhol declared Stettheimer to be his favorite artist.[2] " is lead-only. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've removed it. It is not supported by the source.Vexations (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Early life and Training
This sounds implausible: "by visiting every museum and major art gallery in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to say "by visiting every major existing museum and art gallery in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany" instead. It's not as implausible as it sounds. Remember, we're talking about a significant period of time; she spent most of every year in Europe between 1881 and 1914, except for the four years she spent at the Art Students' League.  She traveled throughout Europe from her 20s until her mid-forties, and had the both dedication and means to do it. Vexations (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)   BarbaraBloemink Feburary 7 2019
 * Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hang on, this doesn't quite rhyme (I think). This is in the "Early life and Training" and the text as written hints it happens between 1887-1892. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. The way it's written, it would cover the period before she went to the Art Students League. It does come across as hyperbole, even if proof exists that is not presented here. I support toning it down. Vexations (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly this too, under "Death": "who donated Stettheimer's paintings to virtually every major museum in the United States". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly state that it was Joseph Solomon, the lawyer of the Stettheimers and several of Florine's friends (Carl Van Vechten and the galleriest Kirk Askew) who donated the paintings to most of the major extant US art museums after her death as per Stettheimer's wishes. Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , we've listed quite a few of them. But let's see, I did a quick check. Going by the museums listed in List of largest art museums
 * ✔️ Metropolitan Museum of Art
 * ✔️ Art Institute of Chicago
 * National Gallery of Art
 * Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art - THIS DID NOT EXIST in 1950
 * ✔️ Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
 * ✔️ Minneapolis Institute of Art
 * ✔️ Philadelphia Museum of Art
 * Denver Art Museum- DID NOT EXIST
 * Dallas Museum of Art
 * Detroit Institute of Arts - THIS HAS A STETTHEIMER
 * Indianapolis Museum of Art - THIS HAS A STETTHEIMER
 * ✔️ Brooklyn Museum
 * ✔️ Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
 * ✔️ Cleveland Museum of Art
 * Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
 * Milwaukee Art Museum
 * ✔️ Museum of Modern Art
 * ✔️ Los Angeles County Museum of Art
 * ✔️ Portland Art Museum
 * Carnegie Museum of Art - THIS HAS A STETTHEIMER
 * ✔️ Saint Louis Art Museum
 * ✔️ Smithsonian American Art Museum
 * Toledo Museum of Art
 * ✔️ Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art

Also: Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019 Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Baltimore Museum of Art
 * Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, CT
 * Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield Massachusetts
 * Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts
 * Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Memphis
 * Boston Atheneum
 * Fisk University, Nashville (now: )Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Arkansas
 * Yale Museum of Art
 * Brandeis Museum of Art
 * Smith College Museum of Art
 * Vassar College Museum of Art
 * Robert Hull Fleming Museum University of Vermont
 * University Art Museum, University of California at Berkeley

So, at a minimum, her work is in the collections of at 21 of the 24 largest art museums in the United States. At the very least we can say that her work was donated to most of the major museums. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said, impressive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mature Painting Style
"In all but her portraits," should that be "In all her portraits," or "In all her paintings but the portraits," or something else? Also, the "intro" section here is long but relatively cite-free. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * BarbaraBloemink Agreed it should be "In all her paintings but the portraits," all of the points in the introduction that are not cited are written in more detail and fully cited in the following text. Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see for example "Within a year, she developed her own, uniquely feminine style, rejecting Matisse's thick impasto, as well as the abstract modernism and the baroque masculine regionalism of her contemporaries." more detailed and cited in the following text, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacy
"and her first biography, The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer." What about Tyler, Parker (1963). Florine Stettheimer: a life in art? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is confusing. We list it under biographies. The problem with Parker Tyler is that it's not very good. It's not really a biography at all. Tyler made a lot of stuff up and never access any of the primary sources and interviewed Stettheimer only once. He is much to blame for many of the misconceptions about Stettheimer. We could say "and her first serious biography", but that would be editorializing unless I can find a source that says that. For now, let's remove "first". Vexations (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * :Tyler's book is Not a Biography! It does not fully describe her life including her full life in chronological order as he did not go through all her diaries and correspondance but relied on memories of many of her friends and only cursory reading of her diaries and jumps around throughout her life only mentioning certain parts of it. I was the first person, in my biography, to track and research her entire life - her movements throughout Europe, her full education and life before her return to America (which Tyler barely mentions) her full series of exhibitions, which Tyler doesn't mention in fact says she didn't do! the development of her work through the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, her relationships with her mother, sisters and friends, the contexts and life behind and while making her works, the meanings and context of her portraits, and the full descriptions and accurate not lie behind her will and death. Therefore it is Incorrect! to list Tyler's book as a Biography!!! Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Some sources call it a biography: In his biography Florine Stettheimer: A Life in Art..., The first biography of the artist was written by film and art critic Parker Tyler.
 * Others say stuff like first comprehensive study of FS, major source of information on FS, The principal biographical source is Parker Tyler, Florine Stettheimer: A Life in Art, etc.
 * So, whatever we call it, biography/book/something else, it clearly has some sort of place in the article. "Biography" doesn't seem unreasonable, that it's crappy doesn't necessarily make it not a biography. Daily Mail is still a newspaper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rated Start-class
Someone may want to look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vexations (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Gråbergs Gråa SångVexations Thank you! Vexations, I cannot thank you enough for all of the time and work you did to make it possible to correct the inaccuracies and create a comprehensive, accurate entry that reflects the significance and innovative nature of Florine Stettheimer and her work. If nothing else, now at least I know that anyone in the future wanting to know more about this artist will be able to locate the primary sources, not secondary ones that are repeating incorrect information - and that has been my only goal throughout all these weeks of back and forth hours of "discussion" on these pages. I know that as time moves forward, others will continue to work on the artist and add more sources and articles etc. but at least the 'base" will be accurate and comprehensive. Thank you from me and from all future readers interested in Florine Stettheimer. You restored my faith in interest in facts and truth. Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)BarbaraBloemink February 7 2019Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Some cosmetic stuff in Further reading and Sources
I'd like to move "Print biographies" from FR to Sources, since both are sources. We can merge them into "Books" for simplicity. Per WP:Further reading (that's a WP:ESSAY, of course), "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend."

An external link in these sections generally indicate an, at worst, paywalled online version of whatever is linked. The "Articles" do this, and that's excellent. However, under "Books" and "Solo Exhibition Catalogs" several EL:s only take you to a worldcat/other page, and worldcat/much else can be found via the linked ISBN nr anyway (under "Online databases" etc). I would like to delink these EL:s, I find them slightly misleading/annoying.

One more thing, one of the "Theses" has a cite which link to a pdf, it would be good if the other thesis could have something similar.

Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree that any book that is used as a source should be moved to sources, and doesn't need to be listed under the Further reading heading. Where the link in a book citation does not offer anything that the ISBN doesn't also offer they can be removed. Personally, I like having the worldcat URL, because it shows me where the nearest library is, and I live in a large metropolitan area with several major libraries, so those links are often quite useful. I don't think we ought to distinguish between paywalled and non-paywalled, but preferentially link to non-paywalled where possible. I'm not sure about the theses; do we need them for citations?Vexations (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See? I don't live in large metropolitan area with several major libraries, so I don't think like that. I'll leave them for now. Paywalled like Tatham, David (2000) is fine, there's no problem with that. Well, excepted that I can't read it, but such is the world we live in.


 * There's some guidance for theses-as-sources at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I don't think we need them for cites, but they may be ok as further reading. BTW, Exhibitions-section needs more citation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , please take a look at ref 27, Watson 2013, pp. 196–199. It's under References but not under Sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Vexations (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I love work, I can watch it for hours..." Thank you. Have fun, I'm going to see The Mule Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible source
Maybe good for something: Anything Went: Florine Stettheimer at Columbia University. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

One more: How the Cult Modernist Painter Florine Stettheimer Sabotaged Her Own Art Market. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Brown
Discusses Lucy Ives' essay: https://www.academia.edu/38525369/Florine_abbandonata Vexations (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Should we consider this selfpublished, reliably published or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see some evidence it could fall under "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , It would be a bit odd to say Brown is reliable as a co-author of Uhlyarik, but not here. Vexations (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Uhlyarik is, I was thinking of evidence like . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Georgiana Uhlyarik is the co-author with Stephen Brown of the exhibition catalog Florine Stettheimer: Painting Poetry, which we use as a source in the article.Vexations (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But the article you linked still seems selfpublished, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think that precludes using Brown as a source. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

halley k harrisburg or Halley K. Harrisburg
, per lowercase version preferred, can you explain why lowercase is better for the WP-reader, is there a MOS or something? The source use "Halley K. Harrisburg", and to this reader lowercase just looks wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. I may have been wrong in revering your edit. The relevant policy is MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, specifically If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention. She obviously wants her name stylized in lower case, see http://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/contact, but at the time of the purchase of the painting, the source (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/arts/design/florine-stettheimer-painting-fisk-university-sold.html) referred to her as Halley K. Harrisburg. Vexations (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Live and learn, I have no intention to argue with the Children's Museum of Manhattan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But you should always feel free to revere my edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

GA-stuff
, perhaps some of this could be improved with a little less WP-voice and a little more "according to Bloemink" (or whoever). Just a thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I could use some help from a copy editor. Perhaps we can ask the Guild of Copy Editors? Vexations (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not that familiar with them, but asking is cheap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor thing, but I have been looking for a decent independent secondary source (always preferable, in WP-land) for the article's mention of The Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer, like a review or at least something more than a passing mention, but I haven't come up with anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I'll see what I can find. Vexations (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1358849 Vexations (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That'll do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Pocahontas
Should we make more mention of her work on the production of Pocahontas? Some info here: https://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazines/the-repatriation-of-f/ Vexations (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per your source, I think it deserves in-text mention. Not a lot, since it's unfinished, but 1-2 sentences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So her brother's name was Walter Walter..? Did he have cruel parents..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Did an Earwig (copyvio) check
, scarier than it looks not as scary as it looks, the 3 first are copying us, bit of an honor or they are lazier than they should be. However, IMO we are a little too close here, the "flirtations" bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was pointed out in the GA review as well. The citation for that statement is also incorrect. I'll look into it. The author of that article, Barabara Bloemink, also participated in writing the article and introduced the text here: []. Regardless of her participation, we should not be close-paraphrasing anything of course, even ourselves. Vexations (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thing you can check if you have the source: "Stettheimer's younger sister Carrie created special cocktails and dishes, such as feather soup, for the Stettheimer salons.[23]" Either younger or Carrie is wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Younger sister is wrong. Carrie is the older sister, of course. http://brbl-archive.library.yale.edu/exhibitions/cvvpw/gallery/stetthe1.html
 * Splendid, thanks. Off-topic, but now I'm a little curious about what Stella and Walter did in their lives. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This could be about him:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it TMI to add the lifespans of the siblings? (Caroline, 1869–1944) and Ettie (Henrietta, 1875–1955). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we have a good source for Stella's and Walter's birth dates. It says somewhere that Stella and Walter were the eldest two or significantly older than Carrie, Florine and Ettie but I don't think that's true. I think the order is Stella (unknown) Carrie(1869), Florine(1871), Walter (1873) and Ettie (1875), but I'm not sure about that. Vexations (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, Walter 1873? Then something is wrong somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Notable American women, 1607-1950; a biographical dictionary vol3 (1971)
, I managed to look inside this book and found some info, if you have an opinion on inclusion/use. Publisher Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, written by... Parker Tyler. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Walter S's daughter married Julius Ochs Adler p366
 * Stella S married was the mother of Walter Wanger p366
 * Ettie wrote under the pseudonym Henrie Waste p367
 * FS studied with Kenyon Cox (in article) and Robert Henri (not in article) p367
 * Gives mother's year of death as 1937 (article says 1935) p367
 * Interesting high praise for her work on Four Saints in Three Acts p367
 * FS had a lifetime obsession of being buried with all her paintings in a mausoleum, relinquished by the time of her death p368
 * , Thanks for this, I'll check it out. Vexations (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITESELF etc
@Barbarabloemink@Vexations@SusunW@Ampimd

Barbarabloemink, please be very careful about inserting your name, replacing other sources with yourself, and adding personal comments to the article like you did here. Among other things, you inserted "how can there be a citation for a lost painting when it is gone? I spoke to West Point in the 90s and was told it disappeared in the 1970s. Barbara Bloemink" as ref. Don't do that, see WP:ISAWIT. It is very hard not to see a degree of WP:COI here. You've been on WP since 2018, this is disappointing. There's plenty of published material on this artist, and WP:s purpose is not to be cutting edge, but often a step or two behind.

You are obviously a WP:EXPERT (perhaps even the expert) on the subject, but partly because of that, care is needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Asked for more input here: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Bloemink! We're glad to have you here, but Wikipedia is almost the opposite of an academic's normal mode of work. We never use original research, and we never make connections that haven't been made by someone else before. This is very difficult for many academics, who of course are expected to do both of those things in their research and writing. What we're trying to create here is more along the lines of a paper written by a very talented undergrad with access to every library in the world. You're in a position to know what's out there and has been published, and which of those sources are the most reliable and currently well-regarded, and that's invaluable to Wikipedia. In some cases those sources may be your own published work, but when citing yourself it may be best to try to work indirectly via edit requests here on the talk page. You can feel free to ping any of us here. Many of us have worked with field experts and are very happy to do so. —valereee (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And while you should probably not cite your own work, citing unpublished work is going way to far. You have noted that you are on WP to promote your book. Please stop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And now we're WP:EDITWARRING. Great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Barbarabloemink (talk) Ok I am happy to cit the fact that in my original biography THe Life and Art of Florine Stettheimer  published by Yale University Press in 1995 I state clearly that The West Point painting was Lost since the 1970s when West Point told me that the policy they had since the 1960s was to lend the paintings from their museum to various officers' officers who worked at West Point and the painting had been so lent and no record was kept to whom it was lent and it disappeared. (Yale University Press, 1995, pp. Note 82 page 262-3.) Barbarabloemink (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Article text:


 * This painting was given by Solomon to the Museum at West Point after Stettheimer's death. The museum loaned collection works to West Point officers to hang in their offices and homes, and the Stettheimer painting disappeared from museum records some time in the 1960s. It has not been seen since.


 * Your suggested ref: It does say the painting is missing, "since 1950s", also "donated by Ettie in 1945" (no Solomon mentioned) to West Point Military Academy. The article says things the source doesn't, but this is easily fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Rewrite per source: . The cite method works because the book is in the sources section. It's not my favorite form of referencing, but WP:REFVAR is the guidance of the land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)