From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Accuracy

This Article states the murderer's name was Julian Carlston, not Carlton:

WILD NEGRO CHEF KILLS 6, WOUNDS 4; Former Mrs. C.H. Cheney of Chicago Murdered in Cottage of Frank Lloyd Wright. SLAYS ONE AFTER THE OTHER Sets Fire to Building and One More Victim May Be In the Ruins. Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Aug 16, 1914. p. 12 (1 page)

The following article indicates that 5 were murdered, not 7, though this is most likely a mistake. This article uses the name Carlton: $500,000 FIRE IN BUNGALOW.; Wisconsin Architect Loses Home of Valuable Prints. New York Times. Apr 22, 1925. p. 9 Hobga ( talk) 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

  • : Biographies and other archival materials state that the murderer's last name was Carlton. Another article written after the fires was transcribed and placed on the PBS website, on this page. The transcribed article on the PBS site is from the Aug. 20, 1914 edition of the Weekly Home News, the newspaper of Spring Green, Wisconsin. So, the names must have been confirmed by that time. The article that you cited from the New York Times appears to have been written after the murders, but before the last victim died. So, 6 were confirmed dead immediately, but the number was eventually 7, the following day I beleive. I looked at one of the biographies--Frank Lloyd Wright: A Biography, by Meryle Secrest (1992, HarperPerenniel, 1993; p. 219-220)--to determine which person died last, but the author did not state it.
The April 22, 1925 article in The New York Times refers to the second fire at Taliesin that consumed the residence wing (that fire was probably caused by a wiring problem and did not result in any deaths). It looks as if the name Carlton was considered correct by 1925. So it appears that Carlston was a spelling error when the news first broke. Marykeiran ( talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
In the Taliesin I article, under Attack and fire subsection; two references to hydrochloric acid (a digestive enzyme) should probably read muriatic acid, a more likely substance in that it is commonly used in general masonry to clean cement and other debris from rocks, bricks, etc. Nancy Horan, author of Loving Frank, © 2007, writes that Julian Carlton had been found "mute and weak from having drunk muriatic acid" on page 343. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngal ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Pronunciation

My friend and I were debating the pronunciation of this word. That guide is completely worthless, in my opinion. Can someone add an audible pronunciation, or something? Thanks, MKultra

I've heard the word pronounced "Tal-ee-see-an", but Frank Lloyd Wright pronounced the word Tally-ess-in. Marykeiran 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Disambig?

If there's enough use for a disambiguation page, I'd think you'd want links back from the various articles... dm 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This is very old, but there is a general disambig page for Taliesin... and the two Wright properties have about statements that link to one another now.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Santiago Martinez Delgado

I believe that references to Delgado need to be removed from this page. My reasons are below.

I have not been able to find any evidence that Delgado worked under Frank Lloyd Wright, or in his Taliesin studio. While I have looked, there is no correspondence between him and Wright at Wright's archives in Scottsdale, Arizona, nor are there any remembrances of him from written memoirs of those who worked with Wright at approximately this same time.

In addition, on Delgado's Wikipedia page, there is a photograph of him "Working in stained windows for Frank Lloyd Wright, 1933." However, Wright wasn't designing stained glass windows by that time; and he never designed stained glass windows that looked like the ones near Delgado in the photograph.

And, finally, the only direct reference that Wright supposedly made about Delgado is on Delgado's Wikipedia page; aside from that, I can find no other corroborating evidence. I think that references to him need to be taken out until an independent source can show that he had a relationship to Frank Lloyd Wright or his studio.

Marykeiran ( talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to keep track of things, there's no mention of Delgado now.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taliesin (studio)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson ( talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply


Hello, I will be starting the review and post it in the next couple of days.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply


Overview

See also: Wikipedia:Good article criteria

The article is well-written and interesting. It provides quite a lot of background about Wright's heritage, history, and events that occurred at Taliesin over his lifetime. It is well cited with reliable, verifiable sources. It generally follows Manual of Style guidelines for layout, sections, words to watch and lists. There are a couple of suggestions below regarding the sections and layout. There is no evidence of original research.

It is certainly broad in its coverage, but there are places in which there is more detail provided than is needed, particularly where there are links to background information in other articles. The article is written with a neutral point of view and is stable. There is good use of images in the public domain. The article seems to be well-paraphrased from the source material.

It looks better now that Taliesin I, II and III are not in bold - and the summary is clear about the estate property + history of the three Taliesin residence/studios. Looks good.  Done-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Article subject

It might be helpful to clarify the subject of the article and the title. The title gives the impression that the article is about Wright's studio, which was just one part of Taliesin III / Taliesin East, which encompasses multiple historic properties that make up the Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places listing. Is the intention to cover the landmark? Or, just the Taliesin III building on the site?

To be clear, though, the article title is not a criteria for the GA review. I am bringing this up just to help hone in on the subject and focus of the article. To be clearer, I suggest remaining it, perhaps to Taliesin East since it's been called that since 1937.

Sections and background

In general, it seems like there's a lot of background information -- Wright's marriage, the killings, etc. What I'm thinking is it would be helpful to have a clear break-out of 1) history, 2) subject (Taliesin East / Taliesin III?) and 3) what has happened to the property since Wright's death in chronological order would be helpful. And, perhaps summarize some of the information, like the section about Wright, that can be found in his article.

The NRHP nomination form does a good job of describing the property and honing in on Taliesin III house/building, for instance. (I had to download it to view it.)

If you want help with this, let me know... I do a lot of clean-up of old articles and am happy to take this on if you'd like.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply
It's looking better! And, I get your points about needing the background history. The portion of the article following Wright's death is much clearer now. Just a couple of things:
  • It seems that history starts with "The valley, approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 km) south of the village of Spring Green, Wisconsin,[5] was originally originally settled by Frank Lloyd Wright's maternal grandfather, Richard Lloyd Jones" in the second paragraph of Location.
  • Perhaps the last paragraph of "Location" about Wright naming the property Taliesin would be better suited under the Early history about Wright or the first Taliesin section.
  • Regarding the "the fellowship sold a surrounding piece of land to a developer associated with the company, intending to develop a tourist complex.[60] The 3,000-acre (1,200 ha) resort included an eighteen hole golf course, restaurant, and a visitor's center.[61]" is included in the Taliesin historic property. Based on the wording, I would guess it's not included - and no change is needed. Is that right?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Content

Rather than starting a list of minor edits, I just went ahead and made them (e.g., set out to rebuild-->rebuilt) as I went along. See what you think, though, about whether the edits are helpful or not. I meant to save time for both of us, not exclude you.

  • I got a little thrown trying to find the NRHP list for Taliesin, because I was searching on Sauk County from the Spring Green, Wisconsin article, but I found it in Iowa County. I wonder if we should add that it's in Iowa County to the intro and/or location. Do you know if the property is on the border of Iowa and Sauk counties?
  • I saw your comment below and addition of the county to the article.  Done-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • By the way, I found the nomination form, so I'm going to add that to the NRHP citation - it has lots of good info and maps.
  • Mamah Borthwick Cheney is called "Mamah" and "Borthwick" in the article. Does it make sense to use one or the other to avoid confusion?
  • Her children have the surname Cheney, right? (I read somewhere that the children spent most of their time with their father, Mr. Cheney.)
  • Is there another way to say "a road that traveled up the hill" - this makes it sounds like it has its own wheels and moves up the hill?
  • "Stone for the house came from a quarry on a nearby hill. Wright chose this yellow limestone because it came naturally from outcropping ledges." Could the sentences be combined, perhaps like: "Wright chose yellow limestone for the house from a quarry of outcropping ledges on a nearby hill."?
  • I'm confused by the math here: "Wright requested hundred and eighty-five apple trees planted, including one hundred McIntosh, fifty Wealthy, fifty Golden Russet, and fifty Fameuse." Is there a number that is supposed to go before "hundred"?
  • Should the article state, before the killings, that Mamah's children lived in or vistited the house?
  • Is there a way to say "hacked to bits" that has a bit more of an encyclopedic tone (e.g., killed, slaughtered)?
  • "Turned his attention" is used twice in the same paragraph
  • In "since apprentices did much of Wright's work, it was solely a benevolent institution" - should the word "not" come before solely?
  • Am I missing something between when the foundation considered plans to make the property a resort and it becoming a national landmark?
  • Better, one question above about whether the resort property is included in the national landmark, sounds like "no".-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Over $11 million has been spent on the rehabilitation of Taliesin during the past two decades" - since the article was written in 2008, should it say something like - "during the two decades prior to 2008?" or "between 1988 and 2008"? -- over time "past two decades" will mean something different to the readers who don't look at the citation.
  • "Financing renovations has been challenging because visitation to Taliesin has been lower than projected" - does this mean because "revenue / monies derived from visitation..."? (not saying that's the right wording, just trying to get the point).

General comments

I see that there's been some updates as I've done some minor editing, so I thought I'd post what I have right now for the review. There may be some tweaks... but I think it's pretty much covers the material.

Great job, by the way, it's a very interesting topic... because of the background stories, it makes it a little trickier... but on the whole you've done a very good job.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I took the liberty of creating this page with a potential layout configuration - and some minor changes to the intro to describe the "district" / contributing properties. Aside from the additional couple of sentences in the intro, there's no change to the verbiage. How does this look to you?
This pretty much addresses the subject and sections items above.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 08:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your comments. I apologize for the slow reply, but I have been out of town. I will begin to address your points this week. Teemu08 ( talk) 03:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What are your thoughts about comments? If you question the reordering of some of the sections, it's partially a style issue, so I'm cool with that.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you again for reviewing. I cut some of the information about Borthwick and Wright in Italy and focused on the material that is directly relevant to the creation of Taliesin. I agree that the title of the article is not perfect, but I have struggled to think of a better name for it. The intention is to cover the whole grounds, which largely (but not exactly) matches the NRHP/NHL description. Taliesin East is not an appropriate name because that name largely only saw use between 1937 and Wright's death. I think I will bring this matter up with the relevant WikiProjects to see if a good name can be identified.
Sounds good. I made a suggestion above in the Article subject section, and that sounds like a good approach.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply
To answer your question about the NRHP list, Spring Green, Wisconsin is in in Sauk County and Taliesin is in Iowa County. I understand the confusion because Taliesin is often reported as being in or near Spring Green. Borthwick's name is a bit tricky to use because her name changed from Cheney to Borthwick when her divorce was finalized. I tried to avoid introducing that confusion into the article. I believe her children have the Cheney surname. I fixed some of the typos and ambiguous passages that you mentioned in the same section. I merged the preservation and recognition sections to make the timeline flow a little better.
Yep, good.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply
As for your comments about the sections and background, I am having some trouble envisioning what that would look like. It is hard to divorce (*rimshot*) Wright's personal life with the building because many of the choices he made were directly related. Wright built Taliesin I as a love shack for Borthwick. He built II after the murders. He had trouble building III because of his divorce to Noel. I do agree with the general notion that the flow of the article is choppy because the house dominates (as it should) the scope of the article. I am thinking that maybe instead I should add a brief rundown of the history and layout of the complex at the end of the Location section. Teemu08 ( talk) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Teemu08: It's fine now with your edits and I understand your point about how the background is necessary for the article. There are just a couple of suggestions left in the Sections and background section. And, I made some tweaks to the article for Bothwick's children's names here, but they, too, are suggestions since the children's last name is Cheney.
It looks good, since these items are just suggestions, I am going to go ahead and pass the article.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply


<< Update for 2020, there are numerous citations for books that are not behaving correctly (i.e. Template:Sfn). They are not displaying as they should and act as a combined reference to their associated books. This makes it difficult for many to assess validity. Does anyone know how to fix? Would it be better to try a different method of citation instead? ALSO, some of the passages attributed seem like direct quotes from the referring books without greater care to crediting the biographer(s) and acknowledging possible bias of those authors. I don't have the books available at present to compare. Can anyone review? Roxanne-snowden ( talk) 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

attack/murder section

at first, i was just going to ask--who was the surviving witness that was present when Mamah was murdered and whose statement allowed for the indictment of calrton? this reads that there were only 3 people present--Mamah and the 2 children, and that 2 died immediately, and the young girl was chased down and killed on the patio. or did she survive long enough to make a statement?

then, i was trying to find an answer (and wanted to add in the ages of the children at the time of the murders because that seems like a common-enough question that people might have, especially the boy's age ((as i was wondering, if he was closer to 18, how Carlton could have so easily killed him))), and came across this page, that has some of the facts a bit different: http://www.morethancurds.com/2012/10/haunted-wisconsin-julian-carlton.html yes, i'm not sure about the source, but... also, there's an interesting theory presented in the comments on that page. i'm wondering if others have written about this theory and if it should, then, be mentioned here?? just a note--i put in the ages but had to guess, without birth dates, and later changed the boy's age to reflect what i read on other pages. Colbey84 ( talk) 05:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply


In response, I have found numerous contemporary (1914) publications regarding the murder/attack that could be of use to describing events. The existing info appears to be strongly related to a singular source (perhaps it is a copy-paste from the biographer's book?). I was taken aback by the multiple "sfn" templates for the same few books throughout the wikipedia page. After reading about these forms of citation, something is obvious occurring in error and failing to generate appropriately. I want to review advice about why this is not appearing as intended and also review the book pages referenced before making any additions, alterations or mention of separate theories/facts. Written with care, expanding knowledge about the subject, including myths, overlooked facts and interpretations, can help provide a framework for further research and reference. Roxanne-snowden ( talk) 12:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The article says that Borthwick's grave is unmarked. But in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3juSckHif90 the documentary film-maker found such a marker. I would add this to the article, but I'm not confident about how to cite a YouTube video. Peter Jedicke ( talk) 08:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Use of term "African American" for Carlton

I understand that this term is sometimes used reflexively, and perhaps euphemistically for black Americans -- or, if you like -- for Americans of sub-Saharan African ancestry. The term has some very appropriate usages, analogous to other "X-American" usages, in a nation where citizenship/nationality is -- at least ideally -- much more important than ethnicity (e.g. Irish-American, Chinese-American). This is different than "Old World" countries like England, or Italy, or Serbia, or China, or India. There is no American ethnicity.

That said, "African-American" is NOT a substitute for "black" (or whatever preferred term for this ethnicity). There are all sorts of people who might be called "black" who are not "American" (e.g. much or most of sub-Saharan Africa, most or much of the West Indies, a significant portion of South America, and, arguably, a significant portion of Canada).

Carlton, according to the article, is of immediate Barbadian ancestry. Therefore, he was not African-American, or at least the term is confusing.

It seems to me that the article should refer to him as simply "black" or "a black man of West Indian ancestry" or "a black American of Barbadian origin" or something more specific such as "a black American born to Barbadian parents" etc.

It really isn't a matter of being pedantic. Cartlon's parents were immigrants from Barbados, and in the culture of the United States, that is an important distinction. To pretend otherwise is doing a disservice to the complicated history of Africans in the New World. And it is important in understanding the mystery of Cartlon's character -- whatever we think about him, one of the few certainties is that he was an American who had roots in the West Indies.

StrangeAttractor ( talk) 07:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Be bold... yeah, ok, so it's been quite some time since my comment above, so I just edited the article to conform better to what I wrote above. It's a slightly clumsy edit, but more accurate. As someone who appreciates accuracy in language, I find it highly annoying (and unfactual) to use the term "African-American" for black people who do not, in fact, come from the United States. (e.g. Bob Marley was not African-American. He was a Jamaican of African ancestry). If you'd like to discuss this edit, I'm interested. StrangeAttractor ( talk) 05:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply


<< This is a response to the above comment. There is a website for Barbados locals and they sought community help in determining the genealogy of Gertrude and Julian Carlton. The most interesting was the discovery that maybe Julian entered the US with a different first name, as an adult. The presumption was that Gertrude immigrated with her husband. Is there evidence instead that Julian was born in the USA (or otherwise immigrated as a child) with his parents coming from Barbados? (That seems like that was the alluded to suggestion above.) Doing a records search, there is a possible contemporary person with the same name from Alabama (which I have seen cited as a claim that Barbados decent was a lie), but this seems to be a modern theory and perhaps due to an overzealous review of ancestry dot com (the record indicates that the Alabamian J.C. was married to someone else). Its unclear as to whether or not Julian and Gertrude spoke with an accent, to what extent if so, and whether anyone who knew the couple in the US could authenticate it. There seemed to be a consensus that at least Julian was from Barbados. That may have been important, as he possibly was not a US citizen. In 1914, WW1 broke out and Britain had just entered (Barbados was a colony). In the preceding years, there had been growing racial tensions too (which would later result in a series of riots). Its possible inclusion of Barbados served to differentiate the Carltons from African-Americans. Its hard to say as theories often evolve in hindsight.

Regarding using the term African-American, I agree, the acceptable use would be to use 'Black' (unless necessary use of direct quotes, which referenced the then contemporary use of 'Negro'). Referring to Carlton as a Barbadian, or Bajan, would be appropriate. There doesn't seem to be any imperative need to draw much attention to race or nationality, as that wasn't determined to be an extraordinary factor. (I found an article to cite later that discusses that some theories masquerading as fact online on the reasons for Julian's actions, as being race related, arose from a fictional story about the events in the 1990s.) Roxanne-snowden ( talk) 13:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taliesin_(studio)&oldid=1204221751"