Talk:Glass Flowers

Leopold Blaschka
Leopold Blaschka redirects to this page. I think that he should have his own page, he's plenty notable enough. Asofaihp (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. He is notable, and neither his biography nor his work on invertebrates belong in the category "glass flowers." This is a specific collection of plants at Harvard University. Alcinoe (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more information about the invertebrates. I just saw them at the mall and thought they were interesting as hell. I was sad to find nothing about them here. Salad Days 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a specific entry for the Blaschka Glass Models that Leopold and his son Rudolph created. The glass flowers formed only a part of their creations. Museumwales (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title change
I'm wondering if this article should be retitled or refocused. Right now the majority of the article is about the Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants at Harvard, with a short section on the Blaschkas' marine invertebrates (mostly a list of the museums which have invertebrates in their collections). The title Glass Flowers seems a little vague - there are a lot of glass flowers not made by the Blaschkas, and there are other Blaschka glass flowers outside of the Harvard collection. It looks like the article was titled Blaschka glass flowers at some point, but the name was changed because the Ware collection was most commonly referred to as the Glass Flowers (see this talk page). A search for "glass flowers" does turn up The Glass Flowers Collection (title of the Harvard website) and The Glass Flowers (an article about the Ware collection from the Corning Museum of Glass website), but it also turns up a lot of other sites for glass flowers (mostly flowers for sale). Perhaps this article could be retitled The Glass Flowers Collection or The Glass Flowers Collection at Harvard?

As for the focus, I'd agree with Museumwales that there needs to be more information about the other Blaschka models. The Ware collection seems notable enough to merit its own article, but perhaps there should be a second article that covers all of their glass models. Thoughts? extabulis (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope?
Should this article be on the Harvard collection only, or on the other flower collections? Presumably not the sea creatures though, as though are a separate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring deletions
I don't care who you are and how many times you've been blocked, but when I see "(9,704 bytes) ( -6,988 )‎ . . (HAHAHAHAHA! If ..." in a page log it's no indication that this is going to be a good edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got the wrong end of the stick. When an editor reverts the careful work of another editor, using an edit summary reading
 * Undid the vandalism of User:EEng (who has been blocked several times and was nominated for deletion in September 2016
 * – that is, terming vandalism that which is nothing like vandalism, triumphantly referring to overturned blocks, and ignorantly thinking that the joke idea of "deleting an editor" was an actual thing, then that's not indication of a good edit, and reversion to the carefully edited version, with edit summary
 * HAHAHAHAHA! If you think bringing up my blocks helps you, see e.g. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277. Users can't be deleted. You need to learn (a) what WP:VANDALISM is; (b) how to write articles, which don't use e.g."astonishing accuracy"
 * is perfectly appropriate.
 * The earlier version was a mass of WP:PEACOCK, WP:SYNTH, and just plain verbal diarrhea with no sense of WP:TONE. Just for example :
 * The Glass Flowers, formally The Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants, is a famous collection of unutterably realistic glass botanical models
 * eventually, the famed glass artists agreed
 * But investments require funds, and to cover such an expensive enterprise Goodale approached his former student
 * Mary convinced her mother to agree to underwrite the consignment of the uncannily lifelike models they both were enchanted by
 * To this day the now world famous Glass Flowers are still on display
 * what set them apart was their own astonishing skill in glassworking
 * Botanist Donald Schnell gives testimony to the astonishing accuracy of the models
 * he was enjoying the "enchanting and very accurate" models, when he was astonished to see
 * Shall I go on? If you think this or that bit should be restored, go ahead and boldly do that (but please, we can't be calling things "astonishing" in Wikipedia's voice) but the article can't remain in this unutterably famous uncannily astonishing astonishing astonished form. The Marine Creatures material is completely superfluous; they have their own article (Glass Sea Creatures) so nothing more than a quick mention is appropriate.  E Eng  03:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the one who removed 'unutterably realistic'. You're the one who is at 3RR for multi-k deletions without discussion, and took out 'astonishing accuracy', which was sourced. That said though, if you visit the collections, you will frequently see visitors who are literally and figuratively dumbstruck by the unutterability of their realism. This is not an unusual reaction to them, followed by doubting that they're artifical at all. They were hard to display when new (museum records attest to this) and could only be displayed in cases, because even learned professors of botany poked them with their erudite fingers and broke bits off.
 * I can see some scope here for editing and pruning - but I see repeated big-chunk removals like this as very concerning, whoever and wherever it's done. Especially when there has been no prior discussion or announcement as to what belongs in or out.
 * Is this an article on Blaschka's flowers, or on the Ware collection? Even that isn't answered yet. If it's on the Ware collection, then the poor photo of the plaque stays in and we try to find a better one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've said changes that writing such as exemplified in my list above in Wikipedia's voice, is absolutely unacceptable, even if sourced. I repeat that if you think something should go back, either say so here or just do it, and if there's disagreement we can discuss.  E Eng  16:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've said changes that writing such as exemplified in my list above in Wikipedia's voice, is absolutely unacceptable, even if sourced. I repeat that if you think something should go back, either say so here or just do it, and if there's disagreement we can discuss.  E Eng  16:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And you're now at 4RR. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Three, actually, as if that mattered. I notice you still have nothing to say about the actual content problems I've listed.  E Eng  16:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the old version of the article has again been restored, this time citing a user essay (WP:NOBLANKING), but still no comment on the content problems listed (partiall) above. I'll give one more chance for actual substantive discussion before opening an RfC so that experienced editors can comment.  E  Eng  16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in the actual edit war but I have to agree with EEng here. "uncannily lifelike models they both were enchanted by"?? Tonstant weader fwowed up. This is not encyclopedic writing. And the same for all the other examples of bad writing that he lists above and attempted to rip out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Second call for any cognizable reason the article shouldn't be reverted to the copyedited version (plus any useful changes since).  E Eng  03:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Last call before reverting.  E Eng  00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again the same editor is reverting to his/her preferred version while refusing to discuss., can you review the situation and take appropriate action?  E  Eng  23:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored and (mildly) warned. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Enough
Enough of this tripe. I work at the Glass Flowers and know more about them than you lot ever will. The phrase "uncannily lifelike models they both were enchanted by" is next of kin to the exact phrasing used by the Corning Museum of Glass in their video about the Flowers, which is shown in the actual exhibit. Furthermore, mass deletions on Wiki is prohibited unless there is a scholarly reason to do so, and you lot only cite personal opinions and barely discuss the matter. This is prohibited per the Section Blanking rules and I have already alerted administrator Co rb ie V    as to what is going on here. I am going to revert the page back, if you want to change it then find proper reasons based on solid and sourced facts. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And thank you Andy Dingley. You model proper Wikipedia protocol.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that you "work at the Glass Flowers" is probably the problem here. You fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works in general, and the guidelines you keep quoting out of context specifically. You have refused to participate in discussion, instead reverting over and over to your preferred version, which suffers from egregiously poor writing as outlined above (and that's just the beginning). Your enthusiasm for the subject is laudable, but if you continue to refuse to take onboard the opinions of other experienced editors you will find yourself only frustrated, and Wikipedia will be unable to make use of your expertise.  E Eng  04:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And by the way, Bard, your comment here raises another point. If the wording is almost exactly the same as the wording of a promotional video produced by the subject, then it is not acceptable to use the same wording here, both because it is probably a copyright violation and because our local policies prohibit copying without proper credit to the source. Everything here needs to be both neutrally worded rather than promotional, and in our own editors' words not words stolen from someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You refuse to answer
Pretty words, David Eppstein, but you have not answered my questions regarding EEng's behavior. You said on my talk page that "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert", and that is exactly what EEng has done multiple times and on a massive scale without engaging in proper discussion. I asked you to explain why what he did was appropriate, yet you did not do so. He began this Edit War, not I, and the reasons for his deletions were opinion-based, as opposed to being rooted in scholarship and Wikipedia protocol; indeed, EEng has been blocked several times in the past because of such mass and rapid fire deletions. We both know that mass deletions are prohibited. I can see that you both disagree with my style of writing, and so you are welcome to reword what I wrote, but deleting it en mass is not the answer. Also, how was my version a "ridiculously breathless description"? It was merely highly detailed, which is supposed to be what Wikipedia aims for so long as said details are properly sourced - which they were. Furthermore, I am tired of these warnings - which you give instead of responding to my questions - and shall defend the article until you explain how EEng's behavior is acceptable. The fact is that EEng violated the three-revert rule (3RR), as both Andy Dingley and myself have pointed out. EEng even admitted it above, saying that he was at 3RR what Andy Dingley said he was at 4RR. Well, now he is obviously well passed 4RR. Why do you take his side in this, David Eppstein? The rules are clear, and this business has been very disruptive to the Glass Flowers page. I shall refrain from restoring the page for 24 hours, giving you time to explain your reasoning. (In the meantime, I have requested arbitration by senior admin and member of the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller ) --Bard Cadarn (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see your only claim to justify the removal of your verbiage is that you worked hard on it. That's not relevant. The more relevant fact is that the article is better without it. I'm not talking about behavior here because it's not relevant — what's relevant is how to make our articles as good as they can be. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You still do not answer, David Eppstein! Everything on the old page, the "plain verbal diarrhea" as EEng put it, was properly cited and the language I used matched that of the sources. Where is the problem? You may have found the extensive details tedious, but how does that justify cutting the article to the bone? Andy Dingley confirmed earlier that EEng was "at 3RR for multi-k deletions without discussion, and took out 'astonishing accuracy', which was sourced. That said though, if you visit the collections, you will frequently see visitors who are literally and figuratively dumbstruck by the unutterability of their realism. This is not an unusual reaction to them, followed by doubting that they're artificial at all. They were hard to display when new (museum records attest to this) and could only be displayed in cases, because even learned professors of botany poked them with their erudite fingers and broke bits off." EEng later even admitted to this! --Bard Cadarn (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Language matching the sources is the problem. The sources are non-neutral and promotional, as one would expect from something put out by a tourist attraction. But that is not what we aim for here. We need to describe things factually and neutrally, not breathlessly and promotionally. See WP:PEACOCK for a more in-depth description of what is wrong with your writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Plea for calm rational discussion
This is getting too heated to be useful. Andy, EEng didn't hit 4RR. I'm counseling Bard on my talk page. The block logs of editors involved here aren't anything that should be discussed here.

There is a problem with flowery writing, I agree. Can anyone help improve it? And obviously we shouldn't be paraphrasing the video that closely, but on the other hand maybe one or two quotes from various sources might be appropriate? Any chance of agreeing on that? Doug Weller talk 17:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You have my support, Doug Weller . I have no issue with rewording my flowery language (most of which is actually backed up by sources) to fit Wikipedia standards. It is the massive cuts done without discussion or cited, scholarly, reason that I have a problem with. The article should, again, be slowly reworked, not instantly stripped down.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * B.C., Doug's comment was not an invitation for you to restore your preferred version . At this point you need to accept that there's a consensus version based on the earlier discussion which you refused to participate in. You now need to either make small, comprehensible edits (which will be subject to the usual WP:BRD process) or (probably better) propose changes here on the talk page for discussion.  E Eng  18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion? On March 12 you, my good  E Eng , just charged in and deleted most of the article without even bothering to mention it on the talk page, much less discuss it. You are in no position to find fault with me in this matter. As such, the version up is your preferred version, not the consensus version.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one but you is finding fault. There's a difference between WP:BOLD editing, which is what I did, and restoring your preferred version after discussion has rejected it, which is what you've been doing (until recently -- see next section).  E Eng  19:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A Compromise Version
I have just posted a compromise version, better organized and closely resembling the 2014 article predating my involvement with the page (hence I have left most of the recent cuts intact). Can we agree on this?

(I still say that the page should have be slowly reworked and thoroughly discussed rather than cut to the bone within the space of a day without consultation or consensus, but this conflict has got to stop)--Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere. I have to run but I'll comment later today. Thanks!


 * As to your parenthetical comment, the appropriate thing for you to have done would have been to go through my edits, modifying or reverting selectively, and/or raising more problematic issues here on the talk page. Mass-reverting a score of edits, some of which were obviously necessary to bring the page's tone into line, was not acceptable. As you get more editing experience you'll come to understand why.  E Eng  19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)