Talk:Mentmore Towers

Untitled

Didn't this place recently burn down?

Not as far as I'm aware. -- Francs2000 09:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"9/11 films"

a kind of a theme tune for 9/11 films: what are "9/11 films"? Hoary 11:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not one of my edits but even I know the answer to that one - or is there a catch to this question that I'm not getting? Whatever? I can't see what it's got to do with Mentmore, irony is not encyclopedic so it can probably be safely removed - what are you doing here Hoary anyway, little off the beaten track for you isn't it? Giano | talk 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just sticking my nose in where it's not wanted, as usual. I just got too bored by my janitorial duties at the talk page of the ghastly Elvis Presley. Anyway [raises voice], it's a free country, innit? (It isn't? I'm condemned to tabloid fodder?)

Really, I think there've been films about this 9/11 but guess you don't mean that; there's also the US thing, but I'm only dimly aware of a single film about it, Flight Something or Other. -- Hoary 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PoV? Crazed editorializing?

What the hell is going on in this article? It has just lost:

Those wooed were not greatly impressed and hung on to their cash, probably because the banquets which included up to six courses of vegetarian food, accompanied by an assortment of varying colours of diarrhoea-inducing, non-alcoholic grape juice followed by over two hours of brain numbingly boring speeches were not to the palate of most international philanthropists. These speeches listed and detailed in minute detail the works of the World Government's ten ministries, whose number included the Ministry of Consciousness and the Ministry of Enlightenment. During one banquet an elderly Englishwoman who had had the foresight to equip herself with a hip flask asked when they were going to get to the Ministry got Fornication and Copulation. The banquets did not prove to be a success.

on grounds of PoVishness or similar. Non-verifiability, perhaps, but PoVishness? Right then, how about rephrasing "brain numbingly boring" as "alpha-wave-inducingly relaxing"? OK now? -- Hoary 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"PoVishness"? [Checking my edit summary.] I believe the grounds were "crazed editorializing". :-) Frutti di Mare 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Well! I'm shocked "Non-verifiability"??? well that's easily solved Hoary, you try drinking eight wine glasses of grape juice combined with a vegetarian chapati followed by two over ripe avocados - that should verify it for you! - and as for you Frutti di Mare (obviously another vegetarian) I can't see why these important details have to be removed, as the give a flavour (geddit?) of the lavish and unique entertaining experoenced by the lucky few at this historic moment in the house's history. Giano | talk 07:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You da man, Giano. All right then, "crazed editorializing". I've tried to de-craze the following:

Those philanthropists who were wooed were not greatly impressed and hung on to their cash, perhaps because the banquets — which included up to six courses of an assuredly aperient combination of spicy vegetarian food and multicoloured non-alcoholic grape juices, followed by over two hours of alpha-wave-inducingly relaxing speeches — were not to their palate. These speeches discussed in considerable detail the works of the World Government's ten ministries, whose number included Consciousness and Enlightenment (although not fornication). The banquets do not appear to have been a financial success.

Any better? -- seaweed-eater 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Maybe after eight glasses of Chianti. Frutti di Mare 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

• An I also object to this edit [1] by an editor (Aloan!!! obviously of low handicap) who has quite clearly never extracted his gold plated Pings from his soft top BMW in the club's carpark and read the long list of how to dress oneself for the benefeit of a memebership who don't know how to. Apparently, one wears long socks with tailored shorts, and never short shorts unless one is a woman in which case one can expose vast areas of overweight thigh. Sleeves must be below the armpit also unless one is a woman, where badly shaved armpits are acceptable. This very sarotial editor was once asked to leave because he refused to wear socks with deck shoes in the bar. Giano | talk 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How long have you had this preoccupation with how to dress as a woman? Frutti di Mare 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Why halved?

There was something odd about this article. Suddenly it dawned on me: it's terse about the architecture. I soon realized that this article was something of a social history, while the inconspicuously linked Plans and interiors of Mentmore was the architectural description. The latter seems a bit wordy, but salvagable; was there a good reason for starting the two articles separately; and if not, is there a good reason to keep them apart now? -- Hoary 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• That article was written a long time ago by a new editor, who never got arownd to finishing it off, (I suspect!) before he disapeared. Giano | talk 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What if I were to compress that article, with the eventual aim of chucking the result into this article and redirecting here? -- Hoary 10:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What a card, that User:Ragussa! Frutti di Mare 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Fine! Whatever you like Hoary, I probably won't ever edit this page again, as I feel insulted and persecuted here by ALoan who has clearly never graced an elite fairway - and a seafood medley (probably elderly calamari), clearly unused to haute cuisine, who obviously crash landed on his/her head while Yogic flying! Giano | talk 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, Giano -- don't go off in a huff, or even a minute and a huff! Moreover, you know how it is: you're doomed to produce FAs. It's your destiny; you can't escape it. (Incidentally, what's an "Elite Fairway"? is it perhaps this with walnut trim?) -- baby octopodes washed down with champagne 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mentmore towers staircase.jpg

Giano, there's no way we can allow this image in the article when we have a perfectly adequate free replacement Image:IMG 6402a2 copy.jpg. You might like the non-free image better in this case, but this is clearly a case where we have a free equivalent, and thus is not even close to being permissible. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not perfectly adequate,it is a dreadful photograph that could be of a staircase almost anywhere, it shows nothing of the renaissance architecture which makes this house notable in the first place. Compare for yourself here. Please revert at once, or I shall Giano (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

File:IMG 6402a2 copy.jpg

This or....

File:Mentmore towers staircase.jpg

or this

I'm sorry, but no. This is a clear-cut case. When we have a free equivalent, we have to use it -- licensing trumps aesthetics every time. However, I will contact the photographer to see what other photos of Mentmore Towers he has. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not equivalent! Very well Howcheng, you are so keen to show how strong your powers are by deletng images, you also profess to know so much about architecture write the page yourself! Giano (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Film location

Did The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (aka Mummy 3) use this place for exterior? --Mato Rei (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about 3, but 1 and 2 definitely did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.111.241 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Plans and interiors of Mentmore

What was for a long time the interesting but unsourced article Plans and interiors of Mentmore is now Talk:Mentmore Towers/Plans and interiors of Mentmore. Well informed edits are welcome, with an eye to either (a) its restoration as a separate, sourced article or (b) its incorporation as sourced material within this article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Architectual Style - Edit War

There appears to be an edit war in progress relating to Architectual syle and both the editors ( User talk:Ghughesarch and User talk:GiacomoReturned ) have been encouraged to desist and take their issues to this discusion page or face a ban for WP:3RR

Have no fear, for the time being the page may remain ill-informed for as long as Wikipedia likes to see it so. Giacomo Returned 21:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have no fear - it will remain correct until Giacomo can find a reliable source which supports his incorrect personal interpretation, and even if he can, the sources which correctly describe the building as Jacobethan will remain reliable, and remain valid Ghughesarch (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh Guys, The whole point of my intervention was to a) prevent you both getting blocked and b) to bring the discussion here so you can post your points of view in full and allow others who may have something to add to contribute. Slugging it out on one or others Talk Page is not constructive. Your arguements are clearly complex and I don't think I need to be reminding expereienced editors as the issue involves subtle interpretation, seeking one or more qualified third parties (not me) to contribute is the collaborative way way forward to go. A break might also help in the meantime but that's up to you bothTmol42 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Well, here's the "discussion" so far. I would welcome the contribution of another editor who knows about the subject as it's not going anywhere at the moment, nor is it likely to between the two of us Ghughesarch (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC):

Before reinstating your claims about Mentmore being based on a design by Serlio, please find a reliable source to back it up. The Renaissance Revival article is a bit of a mess because the term is so all-encompassing (in some poor interpretations) as to be almost meaningless (though as the majority of the examples on that article's page show, it is generally accepted as being a revival of specifically Italian palazzo type models, rather than applying to the revival of any style that was in use anywhere in Europe during any part of the Renaissance). Jacobethan is more specific, is supported by the government's own list description for Mentmore (as shown in the source I have cited), and is more correct in the context of Mentmore than the vague "Renaissance Revival". Ghughesarch (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very much afraid that you have swallowed the old chestnut of Mentmore being based on Wollaton. While I am quite sure that Baron Mayer and Paxton initially saw Wollaton as the inspiration, if you take the time to study the Serlio plans on which Wollaton was relaiably based, you will see that Mentmore is entirely more faithful to the plan of Serlio than Wollaton ever was. All the oggee domed turrets of Wollaton are dispensed with and the interior is entirely given over to the Renaissance - most notably the very Renaissance arcaded central courtyard - glazed to become a Victorian lounge hall - it even has the essential massive Renaissance staircase rising from the arcades. I think if we couple that to encompass that Mentomre was designed to display a famed Renaissance collection of art, we can dispense with "Jaco-whatever." Giacomo Returned 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Oh and PS regarding your references; I am really not that bothered by the opinions of ill-educated office workers or whoever it is who categorises these things without bothering to research! Oh yes, and if the British Governement understood these matters, today, Mentmore would be one of its finest museums of Renaissance art, not an empty festering ruin. Giacomo Returned 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source which states that Menmore is Renaissance Revival, it remains Jacobethan. In fact, it remains Jacobethan anyway. You don't I note, engage with the point I made above about the term Renaissance Revival and its relative useful (or useless) ness in this context.

The "Old Chestnut" about the house being based on Wollaton is supported by, among others, Dr Mark Girouard, the foremost authority on the subjects of both the Elizabethan country house and the Victorian country house. See his "Victorian Country Houses", 1978, which states this explicitly. Plus a glance at a photograph of Wollaton will show that Menmore's architectural style is very nearly a direct copy. Both have interesting Renaissance centralised plans (Girouard also has an excellent essay in his "Town and Country" discussing the various sources for Wollaton), but a architectural style is not just a matter of the shape of the building's footprint, or its interior decoration. The "ill-educated office workers" who wrote that description of Mentmore were anything but - actually well-respected architectural historians who knew what they were doing, and indeed were also often the same people who were utterly dismayed by the politcal decisions which led to the sale and dispersal of the contents in 1976. How patronising of you to assume differently Ghughesarch (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh you are quite wrong. No one doubts or disputes the similarity between Wollaton and Mentmore, however, unlike Wollaton, Mentmore adheres to Serlios's plan more closely - it does not display the quitinsential details of your Jaco-thingy. Infact Mentmore's appearance is far less jolting and restful to the eye than Wollaton - that in itself should be telling you something - try to think what. The banding, parapets and indeed the entire external decoration is entirely that of the Renaissance as is the internal design. The big mistake at Mentmore was using the mullioned windows uniformly externally and making them smaller inside - the blackened glass intended to disguise this gave the house a look of dereliction long before the British government passed their death sentence on a heritage of which it has no comprehension. Giacomo Returned 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you are the one who's quite wrong. I see no advantage in continuing to discuss this with someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about, is unable to use their eyes, and who will not adhere to basic WP rules regarding claims requiring sources, and even flirts off the edge of basic civility - your "do your homework" was quite an arrogant comment to make and matters have not improved since then. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well when you have gone off and done your homework, on the English Renaissance and its Neo-Nenaissance and the hybrids which come in between, then I prepared to discuss the with you. Giacomo Returned 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyhoo - "Renaissance Revival" is a rather vague term which seems to mean anything anyone wants it to, as long as it can be traced to some Renaissance prototype. "Jacobethan" specifically describes one particular English variation of that - the revival of Elizabethan and Jacobean early Renaissance styles in the middle of the 19th century. One could describe Mentmore as "Renaissance Revival" if the much better and more specific "Jacobethan" didn't do a better job as a term, and encompass all that's being argued about. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Giacomo Returned, unless I am mistaken it was you, in a previous incarnation, who added the category "Jacobethan architecture" to the article in May 2006 (here), albeit as your second preference, and the article has remained in the category ever since. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Indeed it was me SM, but now I have had time to study the subject fully and admit the error of my ways. Is that a problem for you? Giacomo Returned 18:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I was trying to understand the difference between the two styles and the fact that the article had borne the style "neo-Renaissance" and been in the category "Jacobethan architecture" for over five years, suggested to me that the two styles were very similar. Especially as both changes had been made by the same editor about a month apart. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I accept this can be complicated, so to explain Scribble Monkey, Jacobethean is a modern 20th century term; it describes buildings built in imitation of the British houses of the very early 17th century (when Britain was in the last throws of its muted Renaissance period), but with a few extra bay windows and trurrets thrown in for good measure and Victorian conveniance/romaticism/fantasy (Sandringham is a prime example), basicaly, they are thinking of the real McCoy, but doing a modern re-think. To put it in layman's terms: Jacobethan is an obvious fake, neo-Renaissance is a bad forgery. Britain's (allthough one could almost say England's) Renaisance period (I started a page on it somewhere years ago; I must finish it sometime) was a very quiet and prety unheralded affair, but it did happen. Mentmore faithfully adheres to that Renaissance form and its decorative elements - it seeks to faithfully emulate in style England's great Renaissance houses of the late 16th century, Longleat, Hardwick and Wollaton, all its modern/Victorian components are hidden or very played down and "Jacobethan" features don't exist at all(eg: the tiny spiral staircases in Mentmore's towers, don't have "Jacobethan" turretts, but are so played down, that even standing alonside the building, only the mosy scrutenising eye can notice their hidden windows) "Jacobethan" buildings are more liberal and hybrid in their interpretations; therefore Mentmore is strictly speaking neo-renaissance rather than Jacobethan - it was a serious architectural work by a great architect - allthough one day, when I have the time, I shall prove Paxton only lent his name and glass roof design, and the true architect was his more talented son-in-law, but that would currently cause Mr Ghughesarch to have appoplexy, so forget I said that. If you have any more queries, please don't hesitate to ask; it is bloody complicated! Giacomo Returned 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Giacomo's trying to be clever, but (at least until he publishes his finding's on Paxton's son in law, the fairly obscure George Henry Stokes, somewhere other than on WP - and even then it has no effect on the architectural style of Mentmore) it won't do. Jacobethan does not describe imitations of the architecture of "very early 17th Century", but imitations of the architecture of the late 16th and early 17th century. Betjeman's invention of the term in "Ghastly Good Taste" (1933), p.41, reads as follows:

The style in which the Gothic predominates may be called, inaccurately enough, Elizabethan, and the style in which the classical predominates over the Gothic, equally inaccurately, may be called Jacobean. To save the time of those who do not wish to distinguish between these periods of architectural uncertainty, I will henceforward use the term “Jacobethan”. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, SM, Giacomo has preferred to engage in a lengthy argument about this (see his talk page under both "Mentmore Twoers" and "Wollaton Hall"), rather than simply coming up with a reliable source that supports his "not Jacobethan" interpretation. I've provided two reliable sources in the article which state that Mentmore is Jacobethan - and they will remain reliable sources regardless of what Giacomo thinks. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I must take some of the blame for letting this turn into a discussion of the article's subject rather than a discussion of the specific problem which has led to an edit war.

To reiterate, then, the issue as far as Wikipedia in concerned is entirely this – reliable sources cited in the article describe Mentmore Towers as “Jacobethan”. Giacomo Returned has reverted the inclusion of this description, and the sources, on several occasions, and substituted “Renaissance Revival” with no supporting source. He claims on his talk page to have found such a source – indeed, a source which specifically states that Mentmore is not Jacobethan - but is refusing to reveal it. In passing, I would also note that his reasons for refusing to do so, and his associated talk of articles he has “completed” smack of a problem with WP:OWN.

It remains a problem, of course, that if two or more reliable sources say exactly contradictory things about a subject, then there is no obvious resolution, but this isn't a problem that requires any knowledge at all of architectural history, just an understanding of WP policies Ghughesarch (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• How can this possibly be WP:OWN? I am not editing the article and am happy for you to do so. I may at a future date make some corrections, then again I may not have the energy and be happy to see it remain in error. I have to say Ghughesarch you so seem rather obsesed by this, I have explained the difference between the two styles above, there seems little more for me to say. Giacomo Returned 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This sentence of yours: "I have no intention of warring with you on the page for some considerable time; you (and all the little admins with fingers currently on the block button) must learn some patience. I think three years is my record to make or complete a page so far - people have been known to die in less time. Just watch the space" Ghughesarch (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh dear and you can't wait 7 minutes, patience is a virtue - will I edit or will I not, or will I wait three years and then write a whole new page? I have done all of those things and it's probably true that people have doubtless died waiting to see. You shall have to be patient, but I have a vast library and archive at my disposal with papers on Mentmore dating back to the 1850s - will I or won't I? The article was correct util you edited it, I think I will leave you to stew in it for a while. Good evening. Giacomo Returned 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And, on top of showing your difficulties with WP:OWN, you also demonstrate a difficulty with WP:CIVIL, and WP:OR Ghughesarch (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be becoming rather agitated and accusatory; I would take an aspirin. Giacomo Returned 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Without taking sides it's clear neither of you are furthering the discussion on the resolving the issue at hand by contributing reasoned arguement, Instead you have just transferred your spat from a Talk Page here. Being even handed here as you are both trying to score points by making it personal, I think we are at the point where a halt needs to be called to this. I'm not an Admin but I guess I could just call one in to put this stupidity to an end. As SM has commented above by presenting facts backed by accessible citations without personal opinions or incivility, it would enable others without any architectural expertise but with Wikipedia experience to assess the merits to help out. So what's it going to be? Tmol42 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've presented facts backed by accessible citations, in the article.Ghughesarch (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK Ghughesarch The English Heritage (EH) cite stands on its merits and meets WP:RS being the statutory body charged with supervising Listed Buildings and the wording having been written in 1951 appears sufficently robust unless there is a RS which undermines it somewhere?. The Bucks CC citation is only a derivative of the EH citation, adds nothing and should be removed. OK Giacomo I've read through everything you have stated. I note your current reticence to debate further. However, it would help (me at least) if you could v.briefly state again you case and supporting citation as per WP:RS. Tmol42 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In the view of Wikipedia's editors this is not "neo-renaissance."

• As you so rightly assume, I am not currently inclined to add further to this debate. I have explained above in terms a child could understand [2] why this building should be defined as neo-Renaissance rather than "jacobethan" (which in itself could be defined a minor category of Renaissance). In due course I shall re-write the page, then you can all see the references too many to list here; some dating back to the diaries of those responsible for the house and others written during this century (I try not to use here today, gone tomorrow,internet references). Among the duly referenced gems will be "Mentmore is similar to, but not a copy of Wollaton" - the architecture is "the result of a careful study of the work of John of Padua". "Architecturally, Mentmore is of internatinal importance" and "Mentmore is a palazzo" all written by the most eminent of scholars and authors. So untill I do my re-write you are all going to have to sit here and look at the error - won't you and I hope it gives you much pleasure - beware of litle boxes and Jacobethen is smaller tham most. I shall now take the page off my watch list and re-write in user space - then you can all have one big lovely surprise. So long. Giacomo Returned 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if nothing else you are consistent Giacomo, preferring condescension to collaboration. Au revoir. Tmol42 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have to "add further to this debate" - just provide a WP:RS that justifies his repeated reversions of my edits. And adding a photo of the staircase with the claim about WP editors is completely irrelevant, as no-one's said anything about the staircase, it's the architecture of the house, taken as a whole, that reliable sources (not "Wikipedia's editors") say is Jacobethan. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, Giacomo has started his re-write here: User:GiacomoReturned/Mentmore_House. I'm sure he'll welcome contributions to make it as collaborative and reliably-sourced as possible before it goes "live"... Ghughesarch (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that Giacomo is back, and reverting edits which have WP:RS attached in favour of his unsourced versions. He has also commented on this on my talk page: User_talk:Ghughesarch#Mentmore_Towers, as follows: How odd, that you only edit to stalk me - I edited this evening to see how quickly you would come out of the woodwork, and you fell for it hook, lone and sinker. What a pity! Giacomo Returned 22:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC). Does anyone have any views on this before it goes to arbitration? Ghughesarch (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt they will accept it at arbitartion - you're not looking too good; you are clearly permanently logged in as someone other and then re-log everytime you see me edit, either that or you have a very dull life. Giacomo Returned 22:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither, actually. But this username is my only presence on WP. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh it's the latter then, where would you like me to edit next? It must be terrible for you, logged in for days praying "Let Giacomo edit this page today." Is there anywhere specific you would like us to go - John of Padua perhaps or somewhere more interesting? As usual I will lead and you can follow. Giacomo Returned 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try editing WP:RS, and follow that up with some edits to WP:CIVIL?Ghughesarch (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• well I am now going to bed, I have made one minor edit for you to follow, so have a pleasaant night editing that page, it must be very lonely and quiet for you here when I'm offline - so that should keep you occupied - its needs some references too! G'night. Giacomo Returned 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, saw that edit in your contributions page (since, at the moment, I am following your edits closely - as you clearly are mine), realised what it was - a very minor edit to Alexandra Quinn, a Canadian pornstar, clearly intended to have me changing your "prior to" back to the previous "before" - rather beneath you I'd have thought, besides, doubtless someone else can be relied upon to revert that.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment re this dispute. Firstly, I would say this to the pair of you - STOP! I could block the pair of you and/or lock the page over this. As with all Wikipedia articles Verifiabilty beats the truth every time. If there are sources claiming one architectural style, they should be used. If alternate sources claim a different architectural style, this should be stated and suitably referenced, especially if the two sources are at odds with each other. So, let's see an end to the edit war. Removal of sourced material by either party without prior discussion and consensus will lead to administrative action being taken. I don't like to block any editor if it can be avoided, but I will do so if it proves necessary for the greater good of the project. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your 3O request as that process is intended to resolve disputes exclusively between two editors, however a number of other editors have weighed in on the issue in this section. For my part, I concur with Mjroots that the Wikipedia standard of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Replacing sourced material with unsourced material is unacceptable. If sources exist to support the change, they should be cited at the same time the information is changed, not at an unspecified time in the future. I won't comment on the civility issue as I think Mjroots has sufficiently covered that matter. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mentmore towers dining room.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mentmore towers dining room.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it did have a fair-use rationale. And still does. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Golf Courses

The extract from the 1946 Ordnance Survey map that I posted, available at this link: http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#489,218,1 is part of an ongoing project to make the OS 1" New Popular Edition available online. It happens that users can add postcode data, in order to improve the searchability of the maps, but it is not a postcode map. The full sheet (sheet 146) is also available online from the National Library of Scotland here: http://maps.nls.uk/os/view/?sid=74466945 The map follows the Ordnance Survey convention of showing, stippled in black, "parks and ornamental grounds" (see the key to the New Popular Edition here: http://www.cassinimaps.co.uk/shop/pagelegend.asp ) The map shows the boundaries of the park of Mentmore Towers (not the boundaries of the estate as a whole), as they were at 1946. Clearly this included much of the area now occupied by the golf courses and the claim that the golf courses do not impinge on the park is not correct. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Parks and ornamental grounds" is not "park". Further, there's no comparable map showing where the golf course is so there is no way to verify that what was once "parks and ornamental grounds" is now a golf course. I do not see any value in adding a map that shows land usage from 65 years ago, when the same land could have undergone several use changes in the interim. For example, that map doesn't show where the stud farm was, yet Mentmore did have a stud farm at least in the 1960s. Risker (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim being made in reverting my additions has been that the golf courses are not in the park, with no differentiation regarding date. They clearly are in the park (as a comparison with the current OS map will show). Incidentally, the 1946 map does show the stud farm, labelled as such. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the map as showing the Crafton stud farm, without mention of the Mentmore one. I also note that the "model farm" appears to be in the same "stippling" as the rest of the grounds that you are considering the park, so I'd suggest that there are some issues with the legend. But again, we keep coming back to why what the estate looked like in 1946 has any relevance to a golf course built in 1992, when the estate would have undergone multiple changes during that interval. You're drawing a direct line from "park" to "golf course" without any discussion of the land use in the intervening 40-odd years.

Now, if you wanted to add the map as an illustration of what the Mentmore estate looked like in 1946, without discussing the golf course in any way, I'd have no issue with that. Risker (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that the estate underwent "multiple changes" between 1946 and 1992 (except for the sale in 1976 when the land ownership was split for the first time)? Is there a reliable source which states, as editors have claimed, that the golf courses are not in the former park? The matter I have an issue with is the claim that has been made that the golf courses are on former farmland (which may have been its last 1976-92 use) and that therefore they are not on former parkland, when they clearly are. The extent of the parkland is also identified and mapped by English Heritage, with a map which also indicates the golf courses, here : http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch Ghughesarch (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the difference in quality between the NLS map and the NPE one is really quite remarkable; the latter is quite blurry. Risker (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes,one seems to have been photographed in a fog and the NLS one has been scanned at a decent high resolution. However, we've moved on from that to English Heritage's Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, which states, inter alia, that " A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." Ghughesarch (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Copied from Risker's talk page

(Note these posts are copied from Risker's talk page, and are copied here to centralize the discussion)Diff

Re this revert, the map website is the 1946 OS Map, with the addition of modern postcodes. These can be hidden using the "hide markers" feature at the right of the page when on the map website. The Ordnance Survey is a reliable source when it come to data extrapolated from maps. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's irrelevant in this context. There's no map showing the golf courses, so no reliable source. And land usage from 65 years ago is also not useful as applied with that edit; as a working estate, there's plenty of reason to believe that the land usage changed over time. For example, the stud farm that was present in the 1960s isn't marked on that map, and I daresay it's more relevant since that is temporally more proximal to the time that it ceased being a working estate. Risker (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One wouldn't expect to find 1960s info on a 1940s map. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of my point. Why in heaven's name would we include a 1940s map, except to say "this is what the estate looked like in 1946"? It's certainly not evidence of where the golf course is in 2012. Risker (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It shows that where the golf course now is was the park, and that therefore edits made on the basis that the golf course is not in the park are not accurate nor backed up by the available evidence. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not listening. There's no reliable source that says *where* the golf course is, and whether it is on former farmland or former park. What the land was used for in 1946 is irrelevant. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you accept google maps as a reliable source? the golf courses are clearly shown in the aerial view: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=mentmore&hl=en&ll=51.865468,-0.689392&spn=0.029787,0.077162&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=5.270256,10.50293&t=h&hnear=Mentmore,+Buckinghamshire,+United+Kingdom&z=14 and equally clearly occupy a large part of the area marked as park on the 1946 OS map (ie, not "ploughed fields")Ghughesarch (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, please don't get me going on google maps, particularly for non-urban settings. Let's just say that if I depended on google maps to travel, I'd never find half the places I want to go. Let's stick to the subject. There's no direct line between "park" and "golf course" since there are 40-odd years intervening, with heaven only knows what land use changes. As an illustration of what the estate looked like in 1946, it is an excellent source, and I would have no problem adding it to the article as such. Risker (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is English Heritage's definition of the boundaries of the park, as identified for planning purposes on the basis of its historic form http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch Usefully mapped and also showing the location of the golf courses, and indeed stating in the description: The park is divided into three main sections. The area west of the south drive is largely surrounded by belt planting with substantial spinneys and parkland trees. This area contains a golf course (laid out c 1990), with related structures, ponds and planting in the landscape, together with a clubhouse at the centre of the west park and an access drive from the south-east entering from the main avenue on the Cheddington lane. Will that do? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Without prejudice to responding or continuing this discussion, I'm going to copy all of this over to the talk page of the article; it was poor form of all of us commenting on this page not to take it to the article talk (I include myself!), as there are some different points being raised, and we're all repeating ourselves as well. Risker (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. More of the "meat" of the discussion seems to be here than in the parts contained in the original Mentmore Towers talk page discussion, so I'll continue in this section, just to repeat that English Heritages description of the park states that "A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." This seems to me to be a reliable source, and not one that relies on a smidgeon of original research or comparison between google aeriels views and blurry scans of 1946 maps. I would therefore suggest that the statement on the article's main page that "Former farmland adjacent to the park is home to Mentmore Golf and Country Club" should be edited to "Part of the former parkland is now occupied by the Mentmore Golf and Country Club", with the appropriate supporting reference from the national heritage register. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The English Heritage site uses references from 1926 (and prior) and 1994 and nothing in between. Of course, the 1994 information is suspect because the golf courses were already in service by then. Further, the description of 1994 sections of the "park" describe pasture and open arable land, neither of which are parkland: in other words, half of what they're calling "park" obviously isn't. Just because they use a header doesn't mean it's an accurate description. Risker (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The EH description referring to pasture (which often is parkland, grazing animals being compatible with the park use) and arable land refers to the situation current at the time that the park was designated. However, see below - the source (DiCamillo Companion) preferred and cited by the original IP editor (all in the same figure range and all posting from Milton Keynes) states that the park is home to the golf clubs - indeed, apart from the editing of "park" to "former farmland", which is not backed up by a reliable source, the content appears to have been copied and pasted from the DiCamillo Companion at http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 Ghughesarch (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The ownership of the farmland on which the golf courses are constructed was slit from the mentmore estate years before the Mentmore sale.

• The land ownership was not split for the first time in 1976. The farmland on which the golf courses are sited (under the banner of Model Farm) was sold to the the Society of Merchant Venturers by Lord Rosebery on the late 1940s/early 1950s. He sold it because it did not form part of the park and could easily be detatched from the main body of the estate. The Merchant Venturers sold the farmland to a private farmer in the late 1970s - that person founded the golf courses. 86.164.144.42 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless you have a reliable source for that (and English Heritage is a reliable source that states exactly the opposite - that the golf course was constructed in, not adjacent to, the park), then it can't be added to the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"The larger Mentmore Estate, excluding the House, had been sold in 1944 to the Society of Merchant Venturers of Bristol, acting as trustee of..."[3]. The park remains untouched and surrounding the house. 86.164.144.42 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - where in the link you have provided (to an amateur enthusiast's website which would not usually be considered a more reliable source than that provided by the government's historic environment advisers) does it say that? And please note http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch which clearly states: "A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." and "PARK The park is divided into three main sections. The area west of the south drive is largely surrounded by belt planting with substantial spinneys and parkland trees. This area contains a golf course (laid out c 1990), with related structures, ponds and planting in the landscape, together with a clubhouse at the centre of the west park and an access drive from the south-east entering from the main avenue on the Cheddington lane." In any case, who owned the land in the run up to the golf courses being created has no bearing on whether it was parkland or not - and English Heritage say it was.Ghughesarch (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Click on 'History / Gardens & Park / Movies'; if that's not wnough for you I suuuest that you peruse the records of Hamnett Raffety, the land agents to the Earls of Rosebery which are now deposited in the National Archives. You will find that they have full coverage of this matter. RedSign (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes! And if you click on 'Gardens and Park', you'll also find that the DiCamillo Companion agrees with English Heritage's records: "The Park is home to Mentmore Golf and Country Club (www.mentmoregolf.co.uk), established in 1992 with two 18-hole golf courses: the Rothschild Course and the Rosebery Course." Ghughesarch (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, hold on now. If the golf course land was severed (as we now have a reasonable source for), and has been for 68 years, why would the golf course even be mentioned in the article? Instead, we should be specifying that the property surrounding Mentmore Towers (which is the building) was sold to xxx in 1944. Mentmore Park has apparently not been contiguous with Mentmore Towers since that time. Risker (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, remove all reference to the golf course. But as it's certainly in the area designated as being the historic park, don't expect it not to get added back, with reliable sources saying that that is the case. Someone is bound to add it back (it won't be me), and if that says and cites sources for it being in the former park, that's fine. But if it's re-added with the untrue claim that it's not in the park, then we're back where we started. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest this compromise: Much of the historic park (English Heritage cited) was sold off in 1944 (DICamillo Companion cited) and reverted to agricultural use (source needed) before becoming a golf club in 1992 (source needed) Ghughesarch (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds entirely on-target to me; I might even go so far as to simply say "sold off in 1944 to xxx, and was subsequently redeveloped as a golf and country club in 1992." Risker (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a source is needed for the (as yet only alleged) reversion to agricultural use between 1944 and 1992, I'm happy to wait for comments from the IP editor and Redsign before the change is made, say 24 hours? Ghughesarch (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not a rush one way or the other, and it might be worthwhile to keep poking around for additional references. I found [4] this about the grounds, which confirms the sale of 3900 acres in 1944, and describes more fully the actual grounds. Risker (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but 3900 acres is vastly more (about ten times) than the area identified and mapped by English Heritage as being the Park (which according to EH includes the golf courses), so again a more specific source is needed for the claim that the golf courses do not occupy parts of the park (whereas DiCamillo and English Heritage are clear that they are on former parkland) Ghughesarch (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Photos

This article has numerous infractions of WP:MOSIMAGES. The captions are overly long. The photos are not placed next to the content they illustrate. They start the section on the left. They extend beyond the section they are placed in etc. I suggest some changes are in order to bring them in to compliance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a bit of a mess. Looks better now [5]. God knows why the image of Wollaton was plonked there at the top - people can click on it if they want to know what that looked like. In the absence of an interior section (there'a limit to what can be written about an empty, decaying house that no one is allowed inside) the long captions suffice very well. I think I did write a big section about the interiors years ago; I'll see of I can find it. Perhaps it can be incorporated somewhere, although it was written before the days of references - and of course there are no publicly published references for of this house's interiors - anyway it's only an empty mausoleum now.  Giano  10:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah here we are Plans and interiors of Mentmore - except some over officious little twat of an admin has deleted it for reasons bets known to himself - I'll see if we can find someone to let us have a look at what it said - some of may be referencable - I think I was the only editor.  Giano  10:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It was moved to Talk:Mentmore Towers/Plans and interiors of Mentmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.116 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, and thanks for responding to my concerns about the photos. Yesterday I upgraded the Maharishi era section by removing unsourced text that was tagged cite needed for 2-3 years and replaced it with text that I extracted from sources I could find on a subscription news service. As the section got smaller it created chaos with the photo arrangement and I had to create a gallery for the photos that didn't fit anywhere anymore. I should have given this explanation earlier, my apologies. Now in the present Giano has done a nice job of organizing the photos on the left so things look tidy but unfortunately that flys in the face of the WP:MOSIMAGES guideline which says images on the left should not begin start the section. If we moved all the photos to the right that would fix that 'violation' so to speak. Is that OK with everyone? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh that was very silly; pruning the Transcendentalists was not a good idea at all. It will attract them to swarm back like bees saying they've been short changed and adding their ten pennyworth back. Very odd people indeed - claimed they could fly at Mentmore you know - even invited me to do a course in it. All I could see was some strange hopping up and down - I said to them, you start flying London to Frankfurt and I may be interested. At my age, bouncing up and down on a bean bag is not to be advised - anyway none of them ever had a drink, not even the odd gin and Dubonnet - told me my mind would be more receptive and aware without it - sozzled I may be by 6.30pm, but at least I'm not sitting there going 'hum hum diddy bum ad nauseum' thinking I'm flying round the room. You see encouraging them back is not a good idea at all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugger the MOS. It's not possible for every page to comply with it - live dangerously and ignore it - I frequently do. It's more pleasing to the eye to have them on the left.  Giano  16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What Sale?

"the Director of the V&A, who hoped that Mentmore would become a 'branch' of his museum for 19th-century decorative arts as Ham House was for the 17th-century and Osterley was for the 18th-century.[19] The government refused to spend such large sums from the fund, and the sale fell through." what sale? what was the asking price? how much was the british government willing to spend on it? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mentmore Towers. 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/20140101122442/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101122442/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365

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) 13:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mentmore Towers. 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/20061001172422/http://www.epr.co.uk/architect_hotels_mentmore.html to http://www.epr.co.uk/architect_hotels_mentmore.html

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) 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Government refusal

The article currently says "Following the death of the sixth earl in 1973, the Labour government of James Callaghan refused to accept the contents in lieu of inheritance taxes..." This statement is unsourced. It is somewhat dubious, as the PM in 1973 was Edward Heath, Labour under Wilson formed a govt late in 1974, and Callaghan did not become PM until 1976. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Quickly found this: "When the sixth Lord Rosebury died in 1974 death duties of over £4 million became due. The Department of the Environment refused the house and contents in lieu of these because upkeep would have been too much of a liability" Illustrated London News (1 March 1977). Supports everything but the date and who was PM, but it's common for these things to drag out over a number of years and the eventual sale was in 1977. The Guardian (1 February 1977) says Govt "recently refused". The Times (7 February 1977) indicates Govt considering offer in 1977 (readers letter but quotes Hansard). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You are quite correct. The final decision not to buy Mentmore in its entirety for approx £3m, but spend over £2m on just three artworks was finally taken in early 1977, when Callaghan was PM. Recently one table from the house sold for £1.75m and two Turners for over £50m. It was a curious decision even then. Giano (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)