Wikipedia

Talk:Fawley Court

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Needs an infobox to make B class. -- roleplayer 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think there are several reasons why this article is not B class, but absence of an infobox is not one of them. Not even in FAs are infoboxes mandatory. Nancy talk 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Concerning POV

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The previous absence of an infobox was indeed amongst the lesser concerns re. this article. While the expansion is laudable, and there is a great deal of good content, there is a considerable amount of unreferenced POV. As perhaps the most extreme examples;

"Greeted with intransigence and without the least consultation with the wider Polish community - ignoring the huge public contribution made by supporters to enable the estate to survive and prosper for decades - the sale of the house and grounds to a property investor, began in the year of the banking crash."
"Aside from the arguable 'heritage vandalism' that had already occurred, on 31 August 2012 the Marian Fathers emptied the grave of the founder of Divine Mercy College and the Fawley Court Museum, Fr. Józef Jarzębowski in the Fawley Court burial ground. Despite his family's objections and protests by the Polish diaspora, Father Jarzębowski's remains were relocated under cover of darkness by local undertakers, to Fairmile cemetery in Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire.[26]"
"Further exhumations and removal of the remains of the Radziwill Family amid protest and litigation, continued. St. Anne's church was subsequently de-commissioned by the local Catholic bishop. In 2015 the press in Poland had taken up a closer investigation into the operations of the Marian Fathers.

The first example is completely unreferenced. The second is referenced solely to a campaigning website that could in no way be considered a reliable secondary source. The third links to a Polish-language website, the details of which, on the English Wikipedia, are completely unverifiable by a non-Polish speaking audience. My concerns, aside from the libellous content and the potential hurt to the families and individuals described, are that this article is being used as a means of advancing an agenda and not as a contribution to an encyclopaedia, much in the way an attempt was made to use the Cefntilla Court article at the time of the "Raglan Rescue" campaign. The material needs either to be removed, or reliably sourced, as a matter of urgency. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed highly POV, and potentially libellous, material, which was either unsourced, or sourced to unreliable/unverifiable references. If the material is to go back in, it needs to be written in an appropriate, neutral, tone and properly referenced. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have compared the revisions at [1] and [2]. I would agree with KJP1 that the original version was not fully neutral, through I would not call it "highly POV" nor "potentially libellous" (this is not a WP:BLP article). Some rewording for neutrality would be good, but I do think too much content was removed. At the same time, KJP1 is right the section had problems with references. Through not discussed, the first sentence (hence removed) read "In 2008 the Polish Province of the Marian Fathers caused a severe controversy in the Polish community in Great Britain and abroad by directing that the estate be placed on the market by informal tender." and was referenced to [3], but that source does not indicate any controversy existed. The controversy is touched upon by [4], a site which is a journalist blog ([5]), and as such has mediocre reliability (not all blogs are considered unreliable, we have to make decisions case by case, and this one seems relatively reliable - through the journalist in question does not appear particularly notable). If this case generated controversy, better sources would be required. If this is the only one, frankly, all we could say is that one journalist described the issue as controversial on his blog, and if that's all the noise it made, this controversy is unlikely to be notable. Now, regarding Polish sources, please note we accepted foreign language sources. Yes, they are a pain, but one can ask at relevant WikiProject for help, and if you are luckly, someone like me will take a look. I have reviewed [6] (ref link in the article seems broken) and it is certainly reliable (a Polish peer-reviewed academic journal). The article does seem to cover the controversy (" Informacja ta zbulwersowała zarówno środowiska polonijne w W. Brytanii, jak i opinię krajową. W mediach, pod dominującym hasłem „Requiem dla Fawley Court”, przetoczyła się fala doniesień, komentarzy, informacji na temat przyczyn zaistniałej sytuacji"), and with that, unlike the blog source, we have a solid ref for an existence of a controversy about the sale. Some Googling shows there is more reliable sources about this (ex. see page 8 of [7], or Polish [8], [9]. [10], but I don't have time to do a lit review here. Bottom line of my 30 is: the old section had poor references and wording that could be improved. It was cut down too much, and I think it should be expanded again, but each sentence should be referenced to a source that supports all the claims there. I'd suggest that the two of you work together on that; if a Polish source is used I trust User:Po Kadzieli can translate any quotes so that KJP1 can review them. I hope that sounds fair. If you reply here to me, please WP:ECHO me. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re. "highly POV and potentially libellous" - if you actually consider the following Neutral, you and I differ as to how that policy is to be construed:
  • "Greeted with intransigence and without the least consultation with the wider Polish community.."
  • "heritage vandalism.."
  • "Despite his family's objections and protests by the Polish diaspora,Father Jarzębowski's remains were relocated under cover of darkness.."

Then, if you need further evidence that User:Po Kadzieli is not wanting to write a neutral article on Fawley Court but rather is using the page as a forum for an attack on the conduct of the Marian Fathers, please see his edits on their own Wikipedia page here, [11].

  • "..the Marian Fathers in the United Kingdom courted further ecclesiastical infamy.."
  • "..a misguided Fire sale and an act of unprecedented charity to a commercial investor."
  • "..a descent into the depths of moral turpitude by an ill-informed, secretive and philistine religious body."

All of the above are/were completely unreferenced. And should make it perfectly clear why I am quite certain a collaborative effort with User:Po Kadzieli would be fruitless. That is before you consider his comments to and about me; "what we then have is close to a cover-up", "It seems that the remover wished to sweep away any reference to lost Polish heritage." The simple, and very plain, fact is that User:Po Kadzieli wants to use the Fawley Court article as a soapbox for his strong opinions on the Marian Fathers. I have no view on the conduct of the Marian Fathers in the sale of Fawley Court, but I do have a clear view that Wikipedia is not the platform on which User:Po Kadzieli should display his unreferenced, unverified and non-neutral point of view. KJP1 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You make a convincing case that Po Kadzieli is not neutral here, and less neutral then I thought, but that does not mean s/he should not be allowed to contribute here. Editors may have strong views and contribute to various topics, as long as they understand the need for neutrality. Nothing here suggests to me this is impossible. There have been no edit warring, and the discussion here seems reasonable enough. While I am waiting for PK to reply here, I don't see much to worry about. He is interested in this topic, that's good. If his revisions need to be tempered down and made more neutral, well, that's why you and I are here, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Colleagues, I stand corrected on the lack of neutrality in the manner of articulating the story in this particular instance. However, this does not mean that all sources should be declared unverifiable. Unless we collaborate, how de we arrive at something encyclopaedic? --Po Kadzieli (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll bite. I'll go through this, and the Marian Fathers article, and highlight where I think we need reliable sources and/or the language needs modifying. It'll take me a few days. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fawley Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fawley_Court&oldid=1207191625"