Talk:Medieval Merchant's House

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Medieval Merchant's House the current co-ord point to Portland in Oregon. Just a little far off....

—122.152.148.234 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - had the house been moved to Portland, Oregon, that would be a noteworthy fact for the article itself! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Number 58

While the VCH records that French Street was the original name (noteworthy in itself), I'm betting that the house was not built at no. 58: in fact, I would be extremely surprised if it had had a number at all until much later. Is there any kind of source for that claim? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of tense I think; as Malleus's review suggests, it needs clarifying. I'll sort on Weds night when I've a proper internet connection again. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghost stories...

I've reverted, as the original source really doesn't appear to have a notable story. The text in the Telegraph caveats the alleged event with "according to staff", and gives no indication that English Heritage themselves gave the incident any credence. All we actually have is the suggestion that 1-2 staff allege they found unexplained footprints on a gravel floor in the property on one occasion at an unknown date during the last 20 years. I don't think is a truly notable encyclopedic event, and shouldn't be given undue weight. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a new section which I believe answers issues with previous edits. The additional references hopefully justify due weight of this section, although obviously it’s the shortest and the last. Relating the Ruth Dill story, which appears in a number of online and published sources, in a section separate to the history along with the origin of the story makes it clear that its historical claims are not backed up and it has no veracity despite its coverage. Mutt (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mutt, it's important that we only use reliable sources on the wiki, and avoid undue weight. The policy guidance notes that we should be seeking high quality sources, which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, avoiding self-published sources: a peer reviewed paper from an academic journal would be an example of a really good example of this.

The Southern Daily Echo is actually reporting the views of the Sarah Siddons Fan Club, who were promoting a commercial ghost walk in the newspaper; again, not a high quality source for folklore research.

I don't think that Coles' book was published by the City of Southampton, but was actually self-published by the City of Southampton Society (OCLC 642548750).

Neither Amberley nor Countryside Books doesn't have a strong reputation for fact checking or peer review. Giving a large quote box to something once said by Dorothy O'Beirne appears to be giving seriously undue weight to a fringe claim.

We also need to be careful not to create OR by putting material together, e.g. "The Medieval Merchant's House, which English Heritage listed in their spectral stocktake of 2009, is said to have a long history of haunting..." gives the impression that the middle clause relates to the second half of the sentence, which it doesn't.

I'm also concerned that we re giving undue weight to a claim which the proposed text itself notes has "no historical supporting evidence". Hchc2009 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to find the best possible sources available and if you can recommend any better sources on this topic then I will look into them. I would point out that the existing article only has one peer-reviewed journal as a source and this is only referenced once in the architecture section. To rely exclusively only on such academic sources would, it seems, greatly reduce the breadth of this article and indeed Wikipedia as a whole.

In fact the vast majority of information about the house in the current article seem to come from a single source, Dr. Coppack’s official English Heritage guidebook. The more academic sources from Routledge and Yale are referenced to add background information of what was happening in the region at the time and contain few, if any, specific reference to the house. While those that do reference the house specifically come from less academically renowned sources, highlighting the problem of finding such references for this article.

I take note your criticism of Amberley and Countryside Books and would greatly appreciate more details of the criticism so I can take it into account if and when any contradictory sources are identified. In the meantime, I would point out that their publications already provide sources for numerous articles on Wikipedia. As for the reference to the Sarah Siddons article in the Echo, this was used as part of a series of references to support the statement that, “the story has been repeatedly related,” which I believe it does. I have, however, tried rewording the sentence to make it less misleading and would be happy to see any further edits you suggest.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake in the listing of the Cole’s book and raising your concern over the presentation of the O'Beirne quote, I will of course be happy to make those alterations. I share your concern with the potentially misleading use of compound sentences but I disagree with your criticism that, "The Medieval Merchant's House, which English Heritage listed in their spectral stocktake of 2009, is said to have a long history of haunting..." creates a false connection as sentences with clauses unrelated other than by the subject, such as, “my sister, who lives in New York, is a lawyer,” are standard in grammar guides, that said I have once again made alteration and would be happy to see your suggestions.

I see that you have contributed many excellent articles on historic subjects and I have nothing but the highest regard for your fine work in that area, but I do believe there is a place on Wikipedia for material that does not have the support of historical evidence, the legend of Sir Bevois and King Cnut turning back the tides are two local examples that spring to mind, and as such I believe that the due weight of this local legend is more than zero.

I have tried to meet your concerns on three separate occasions now only to have my work instantly reverted. So, on this occasion I have chosen not resubmit but have rather placed the material on a sandbox page here. Do you foresee any situation in which you would be able to accept the coverage of this material in some form in this article? If so please feel free to make any necessary edits there. Mutt (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Matt. I would agree that there is a place for legends etc. that may not have historical evidence (indeed, King Cnut is an excellent example - many people will have heard of the story, and might well come to the Wiki seeking to fine out "is it true?" "is it based on a real event?" etc.). The wiki policies state though that we need to be exceptionally careful when dealing with fringe theories, and even more so with fringe theories that aren't widely known among the public or necessarily particularly notable in themselves. Sadly there is a lot of paranormal literature in the UK which is of rather low quality, with rumours recycled from earlier fringe works with minimal or no fact checking, no or minimal effort made to acquire supporting materials or evidence, no peer review or independent scrutiny, no reference made to academic studies on culture and folklore etc.

As you say, it is easier with conventional historical accounts, as one can more readily rely upon the strength of the publisher (e.g. English Heritage, the government's non-executive body on the care of the historic environment of England) or the author (e.g. Dr Glyn Coppack, previously one of the government's Senior Inspectors of Ancient Monuments, now at the University of Nottingham). I don't think that we can't cover folklore or fringe theories, but it makes the acquisition of good sources, and treating their claims carefully, all the more important.

A couple of queries on the sandbox text:

• Does Coles say that the building was haunted, or is that simply supporting the statement that the building was used by the students? It would be interesting, in and of itself, if we could fill in more about what the building was used for in the post-war years. NB: I'm also thinking that if he wrote in 1972, we could be more specific about which part of the 20th century this must be referring to.
• There are several "is said to" constructs in the sandbox (e.g. "The house is said to have..."); does the source(s) give any indication of who says this? The MOS is (rightly) against this sort of phrasing in general, as it tends to obfuscate the original meaning.
• Does Fox give any sense of how much research he'd put into the claims, or does it look entirely as though he's based this off something the granddaughter may have reported many years later? My thinking is that this feels a little thin as an encyclopaedic fact ("candles blow out when you open the door" - um, yes, that's quite normal in many old houses!) but if the ghost was widely reported back at the time perhaps there might be more value.
• I'm still not convinced that the "footsteps in gravel one morning in the mid-1990s" story is a decent encyclopaedic-worthy fact. I note that English Heritage haven't repeated it since the mid-2000s and, as noted above, they didn't say that they believed it was supernatural even then.
• I think having an entire paragraph on a possible seance in the 1950s or '60s which may, or may not, have occurred (as your draft suggests, no one seems very sure), seems excessive. I could see an argument for keeping the last sentence though, if we can find sources which stress it is often used by regional theatre groups etc. today - we're then talking about explaining a real event (that theatre groups use the building) as opposed to hypothetical rumours of a ghost etc. The newspaper, as you say, gives evidence of one such instance, but are there others?

NB: Generally for folklore research I'd advise starting with something with a pretty solid reputation, perhaps like the "Journal of Folklore Research" (run out of the Indiana State University) or one of the various high-quality academic press publications on early-modern ghosts and folklore (which has been a growth area in the last couple of decades). "Haunting Experiences: Ghosts in Contemporary Folklore", by Goldstein, Grider and Thomas (Utah State University Press) looks like it might be quite applicable to some of the subjects you're interested in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input, I have edited the draft accordingly. I would like to say that I honestly believe you to be a highly experienced and dedicated editor and that your input has been very valuable in making the material that is currently sitting in my sandbox much stronger, and for that I do thank you, although I do have some concerns with the way in which you have done this.

You’ve repeatedly mentioned “due weight” in our discussion. My understanding of due weight is that it refers to maintaining NPOV by giving each side of an argument the amount of coverage appropriate to its general acceptance. I fail to see how this applies to our current discussion as the claim that these local legends exist is not a fringe theory and in fact I know of no alternate argument stating that these legends do not exist, if you have such references to such please let me have them. If the draft were claiming the legends were real then this would be a fringe theory that would need fair weighting with opposing views, but it doesn't, therefore I don’t see how due weight applies. Please let me know how your reading of this policy differs.

Wikipedia’s stated policy is that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, and as the draft does not contain original research, copyright material or violation of any content policy that I am aware of, this leaves verifiability as the only possibly valid objection to the edit that I can see, again please let me know if you read this differently.

Obviously there will be better sources buried in the archives and I hope these will be dug up and referenced at somepoint. In the meantime, in accordance with the policy that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and as previously stated Amberley and Countryside books have been referenced in numerous other articles and there other sources listed to back these up, I think the references we have are more than sufficient for the draft to go live. We can of course take any particular concerns you have to the reliable sources noticeboard once that has happened.

The issue of undue weight is a significant one as this is basically the only justifiable reason for completely reverting a good faith edit as you have done to me on four occasions, in what I feel to be a violation of Wikipedia policy to revert only when necessary. As such I would now like to take this out of the sandbox and put it into the article without fear of it being reverted in its entirety, are you agreeable to this? Mutt (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never suggested that your edits were not in good faith Mutt. WP:UNDUE requires that the weighting in an article as a whole reflects "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"; undue weight can be given in various ways, including excessive detail, length of text etc. This requires that the balance of an article follows the weighting in reliable secondary sources. I'd also argue that WP:FRINGE may well appear here. To restate my concerns from above:

• Neither the Countryside nor Amberley presses have a particular reputation for fact checking (i.e. going through and rechecking the facts in the manuscripts with their own editorial teams) or peer review (e.g. passing the manuscripts by teams of specialists, as occurs with more academic presses). This doesn't help us use them as reliable sources for unusual claims.
• I'm not seeing any evidence that the building has a long history of haunting. There are no historical references (i.e. written material or evidence from the past) given in this article; Ian Fox appears to have found no historical records of haunting, and is only using what Ms O'Beirne, has told him in modern times. No historical evidence seems to exist for any part of the 1950s story (indeed, there is only evidence of it being told from the 1980s onwards), nor (understandably, as it only involved footprints) for the 1990s gravel incident. The best I think that we've got here (and I think it is weak, as per the below) is evidence that from the 1990s onwards people claimed it was haunted. This is in contrast to some locations, which have historical evidence of ghost stories being told about them for many centuries.
• The suggestion that a ghost regularly appeared in the bedroom in the early 20th century in front of Ms Allen is an extreme claim, and definitely WP:FRINGE.
• The suggestion that Ms O'Beirne told Ms Allen that she saw a ghost regularly appear in front of her is less of an extreme claim (even the appearance of a ghost is most unlikely to have actually been true, and we don't know if Ms O'Beirne even believed it herself), but is given undue weight here in the form of a full paragraph; as noted, there is no evidence that any such ghost appeared, and it is not exactly a famous claim, even locally.
• The suggestion that a poltergeist attacked students with a table in the 1950s or '60s is an extreme claim, and definitely WP:FRINGE. The proposed sandbox text emphasises that there is no evidence for the story or the Ruth Dill individual mentioned in it, and that it may well be untrue; I think that this is the right tone for it. Again, though, a paragraph on an incident that probably didn't occur feels excessive. I'd support a sentence on it, particularly if it focused on the true fact at the end of the paragraph - that at least one drama group has used it as the basis for a ghost walk story.
• The suggestion that a ghost appeared and made steps in gravel in the 1990s is an extreme claim, and definitely WP:FRINGE. It isn't even supported by the cited source, as English Heritage doesn't appear to have made any assessment that the events were real or occurred at all; they're just reporting that a member of staff (anon.) told them this information. As a one-off event that only one person (the member of staff) has claimed was supernatural at all, I think that giving it a full paragraph is undue compared to its position in the literature on the house.
• I'd prefer us to continue to seek consensus on the talk page before further editing, as per WP:BRD. Would you support the interim addition of a sentence on the student story, focusing on how it now used by drama groups? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• NB: Having said that, I'm having real trouble finding another reference to Ruth Dill being used by drama groups other than the instance in 2002; Google isn't coming up with anything (I've been trying combinations like "Ruth Dill southampton ghost", and drawing a blank).
• NB 2: I've just done some Google and Google book searches on the Ms Allen ghost story, and for anything further on the links between the Southampton Student Players and the house, and can't find anything coming up in any additional books or websites. Usual caveat, of course, is that Google isn't an infallible research tool! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval Merchant's House. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081001170041/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Listed%20Buildings%20in%20Southampton%20-%20Descriptions_tcm46-161809.pdf to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Listed%20Buildings%20in%20Southampton%20-%20Descriptions_tcm46-161809.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval Merchant's House. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001170041/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Listed%20Buildings%20in%20Southampton%20-%20Descriptions_tcm46-161809.pdf to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Listed%20Buildings%20in%20Southampton%20-%20Descriptions_tcm46-161809.pdf

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) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)