Talk:STEAM fields

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdd5397.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge

This doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own article. We could make a minor note on the STEM article that sometimes arts majors add themselves in and alter the acronym, but this isn't notable enough to need its own page. Undue importance. Ranze (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a WP:STUB. And it is notable. There's lots of news out there on it. It's just that nobody has gotten around to posting any of it in this stub to make it an article yet. It's at the congressional level. There's a bipartisan STEAM caucus. There's at least 3 books in print on the subject.

Art majors? That's not even what the movement is about. Curriculum is being developed for K-12. Do a little research and give it a little time. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ranze. Delete this STUB and add a minor paragraph in the STEM article, under the heading "bandwagon ideas". --DeknMike (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you are just trying to be funny. But comments like that aren't civil and don't advance any argument. I suggest you read Z22's reply to comments on the STEM article so you can learn how to be WP:CIVil and have a WP:NPOV. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm dead serious. I know the value of music education for developing programming skills. Apple has taught us the importance of good design in our technology. But Art education is not what STEM is about, and until there is wider acceptance of your version of STEAM, this stub should 'cool down' (pun intended). --DeknMike (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're the one making it hot. It's just a stub. What are you afraid of? Oicumayberight (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the first three comments funny and the following ones to be not fun and worse: annoying.. but since we are here, I do dare you: make an acronym of (M)edia, (A)rts, (L)iterutarure letter combination that sounds cool. I kind of understand why (A)rts is trying to find it's way into STEM now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:5BCF:7087:CE43:C0F:BB8D:52 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ps: I do realize that collaboration between techies and the fine arts is essential to build something that humans consider appealing, and that many fail to realize this. But I do like to make fun of the phallus wangling and insecurity that is going on between these groups, instead of productive dialog. [last comment author] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:5BCF:7087:CE43:C0F:BB8D:52 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming a very big deal. All K-12 schools in Korea have adopted it. As a founding researcher I have schools in the US adopting it in every state now. It's not STEM, it brings it to the next level - it's whole-person, global, left brain/right brain learning. It should be mentioned in the STEM article, but it should also have its own page.

Ugh, this is pathetic, STEM fields are quantitative and empirical, arts is subjective. Arts have no place in STEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.170.69 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I added text this morning the STEAM field article and received a conflict of interest message. This is my first time submitting a Wikipedia entry and would appreciate any feedback on how to edit the entry to make it conform to Wikipedia guidelines.Agneschavez1 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend this article be merged to Art education in the United States for the time being. AadaamS (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a little broader than that topic. I agree that the larger portion of STEAM is focused on K-12 and college education, but a not too small portion is focused on the extra-curricular, careers, corporate training, and the U.S. job economy. The conferences I've attended are actually more political than educational. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure why a merge to Art in the United States. AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That article is too specific to Visual art. It's also not exclusive to the United States. This map shows global participation in the movement. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Art in the United States page could clearly do with some extension then, the name of the article sets the scope so that would not be a problem. Claiming that it's specific to Visual Arts is a non-argument, because such a thing could easily be fixed. The art community campaign for STEAM clearly originates in and mainly concerns the US. Merging there and having this article redirect there would be a good interim solution until GNG has been verified. This article could always be recreated later. AadaamS (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read that article before you consider shoving the content in an article where it clearly doesn't fit. That is a big article that says nothing about performing art or art education. You're talking about a name change and a major overhaul of that well developed article just to make this content (that you don't think is notable) fit.

You seem to be forgetting that STEAM attempts to do everything that STEM is doing with the added element of art. Art is only 1/5th of STEAM. It's not a good idea to oversimplify STEAM just because you want to see this stub not have it's own page. Nobody tried to merge the STEM article into either the Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math articles, or even the Education in the United States article when it was an educational stub. The only real objective fact you seem to be eluding to as evidence in your "not GNG"claim is that STEAM is less popular than STEM. And your claim lacks consensus. Oicumayberight (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had seen the STEM article before the subject had achieved GNG, I would have argued for it to be deleted. I have recommended delete for a couple of software articles, FYI. Wikipedia simply can't make a new article for every buzz word that some promoter invents. The first order of business before creating any article should be to see if it meets GNG and add verifying references. Now you're making the point that the art domain article structure is a mess. AadaamS (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG Notability

There aren't enough sources to prove notability of this subject ... and without being able to WP:V verify the WP:GNG notability of this subject, the subject can't have a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an argument from ignorance which I strongly disagree with. I've been to a dozen STEAM conferences and most of the scholars involved in this movement aren't aware of this article. I've been editing wikipedia for a decade, and it's always been underrepresented in scholarly contributors on art related subjects. Although it's just a stub, you can put a {{notability}} tag on the article if you'd like. But at least give it time. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oicumayberight: you "disagreeing" or calling me ignorant doesn't matter as far as WP:GNG is concerned, only sources. There's nothing in WP guidelines that say stubs are exempt from notability guidelines. I can see that in your previous comments in this talk page you asked this article to be given more time 2 years ago ... how much more time than 2 years do you think is necessary? Good luck in the source hunting. AadaamS (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't call you ignorant. But your argument had an ignorant premise.

Anyone can read the history and see that work has been done in support of this article in the 2 years since. The movement is growing, not shrinking. There has been comments made both for and against STEAM in this talk page. Seems that some STEM advocates want to make wikipedia a battle ground over it. STEAM is obviously a controversial movement. And your profile and edit history here and on John Maeda's article makes it obvious which side you've taken in the controversy. Just because an article is controversial doesn't mean it's not notable. If anything, controversy tends to make a topic notable. If it wasn't notable, you probably wouldn't have heard about it and you wouldn't even care if this article existed.

I suggest you read WP:JNN and be more specific than just your pointing to GNG as an excuse for your delitionism of articles that you obviously just don't like. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My specific criticism is that most of the sources can't verify notability because they are WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS published by the subject's promoters, sources must be secondary to verify notability. And you are right, I could have made this point more explicit from the start. Imho the PBS News Hour source is one good secondary source, but multiple sources are expected. Please do not confuse the issue with further remarks as to my deletionist stance, my science interest or further delaying tactics. Let's discuss the sources available here and now. AadaamS (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Most everything published is published by the "subjects promoter" or else the publisher wouldn't make much money. Most publishers aren't in the business of publishing things that they don't support or care about. And most of the news media is owned by a major for-profit conglomerate who often promotes the work of their authors in "news reports" with disclaimers. Read concentration of media ownership. I don't know where you get the "not by subjects promoter" part, but it's not in WP:SPS. It's not even in WP:PROMO.

As for self-publishing, the policy states "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." That can be as little as a 3rd party news article quoting the established expert. So yes, if you want to challenge each source and point out the part that is specifically in violation of WP:V, let's do it.

BTW, I'm not hunting for sources, because I don't have much time and would rather see what other people find most notable in this movement. But if I had to, I could find 10x the sources in this article. I just don't want to WP:OWN it. I've been watching art related articles on wikipedia for a decade now. The pattern is that they are slow to develop because art scholars don't care as much about wikipedia as scientific and technology scholars care about wikipedia. And it's probably because systemic bias makes them feel unwelcome whenever they try to contribute. I'm one of the few humans with the patience to stick it out on planet Vulcan. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A reliable and secondary source would be an expert of education commenting on the merits of this art campaign, preferably in a major newspaper or a chapter in a book, an expert who is him/herself does not have a stake in the success in said campaign. Beyond delaying tactics and ad hominem attacks on me, I must also ask you to not confuse the issue with media conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks on the STEM community or ad hominem attacks on the entire Wikipedia community. A lack of online sources is an indication, but not proof, that this subject lacks notability. My guess is that this issue will be settle in either direction by hardcopy sources (or the lack thereof). AadaamS (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are making up policy on the spot with "does not have a stake in the success in said campaign" and "major newspaper." Nothing in WP:V of the sort. That's just your way of trying to keep it subjective instead of facing the facts that sources are out there. Here's you're printed books. and here's your papers by Educators on the subject. If you weren't so quick to judge you would be finding this stuff yourself, and you'd know that most of the people in the movement are educators. And what stake do federal congress members have in it? What stake does the co-founder of Apple Computers have in it? Here's your article for news outlets and educational institutions.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/from-stem-to-steam-science-and-the-arts-go-hand-in-hand/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-m-eger/national-science-foundati_b_868449.html

http://www.cbs8.com/story/24446978/innovate-8

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/01/13steam_ep.h31.html

https://one.arch.tamu.edu/news/2013/2/6/sead-update/

https://www.palmbeachstate.edu/crm/Documents/news2013/130130STEAMpreeventrelease.pdf

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html

How many more links do you want? Oicumayberight (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I am drawing on experience from about two dozen AfD discussions about which sources are accepted as verifying GNG. The cbs8 and huffington post articles together with the PBS article did the trick. Thank you for your research effort. Everything else you wrote was just a waste of your and my time, see WP:NOTFORUM. AadaamS (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad we got that settled. Now maybe the contributors of this article won't have their time wasted by having their contributions deleted without researching the notability, and anyone reading this talk page will be more careful with this article. I'm also glad for your own sake that you are aware of WP:NOTFORUM. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)