User talk:Giano/Exploding Houses

Listing history - the hard facts.....yawn.....nod....nod.....

• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/jd970206/shimiz02.htm --Joopercoopers 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-9186%28197122%2936%3A3%3C348%3ACDIBPL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=LARGE - Jstor - I think Wetman has access now maybe he can get the rest of the document. Makes the useful distinction between a listed building and a Scheduled Ancient Monument--Joopercoopers 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across those links during an idle moment at lunchtime and thought you might find them useful for a bit of background context. Rather than sweep it all away [1] if you copy it over here or onto my user space somewhere I'll merge it into the listed building article, currently and ironicly bereft of historic context. --Joopercoopers 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha I missed we suddenly have a talk page here - just the stuff I'm doing at the moment - that section of the page is just basically a collection of thoughts - which could become dangerously close to own research - so I'm just setting things out so if I do come out with anything contraversial regarding the cause of the demolition any statement can be reffed to a legal text book or opinion of someone eminent. Thanks for the links I will use them, at the moment ploughing through some old tomes that have not been opened for years by the smell of them! Giano 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've an up to date copy of the eyewateringly dull 'Architect's legal Handbook', which may be a good citable source if you need it. By the by, I was at a meeting last week with a very eccentric planning-law barrister (A stickler for tradition, even the fuggy, humid, stuffy atmospheres of courtroom in the summer do not deter him from wearing his 3 piece suits complete with vests; his attire isn't ever moderated, even for site visits where he's been seen vaulting barbed wire fences and waving his bowler at bulls.) Anyway, during one of his rambling anecdotes, he talked about a planning appeal he'd done on the Isle of Man. Often in the UK 'overdevelopment' is an issue in planning appeals - more than approx 50 houses per hectare is considered over the top. For the barrister's appeal in the IOM case however, the 'overdevelopment' issue was one where the appellant had proposed development that marginally violated the 'one dwelling per hectare' policy they have over there - the rich man's planning authority. Strangely, for a tax haven, I can't remember reading anything about grand architectural statements on the Isle of Man - I've been to Douglas, which has the feel of an even more windswept Llandudno - maybe you know otherwise? --Joopercoopers 11:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only ver been there once, marginally more than thrilling that the Isle of Wight - I'm not sure how much of that stuff I will be using, I just want it there to refer to as the page takes shape. Giano 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this from the Kinks 1967:-

"The tax man's taken all my dough,

And left me in this stately home,

Lazing on a sunny afternoon.

And I can't sail my yacht,

He's taken everything I got,

All I've got's this sunny afternoon..... etc.

--Joopercoopers 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't see the note at the top. Didn't realise it was private user's space (what is that?). Tis a subject which interests me. so I've just wasted my rather valuable time trying to assist. David Lauder 15:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically it is workshop or a sandbox with a name, many editors like me have more than one page on the go at the same time. In user space one can edit without fear of conflict, try out ideas, play around with text, write a page without bothering too much about spelling and grammar - leave notes to oneself, even as I do often do swear at oneself. This is especially important to me as English is not my first language.

Also when working on a very big page that takes a long time it is invaluable to be able to work without other people's input which can hinder the thought process. Also big pages like this have to be heavily referenced and so things like that can be incorporated into text in a way that could not happen if the page were on "public display". The page can be completely unreadable for days on end - while I sort out what goes where.

One could build a page on a processor package at home, but they never look the same, and the images etc. - so this is just the way I and a lot of other editors have chosen to work. You will have seen there are vast chunks of boring legal stuff, they will not appear in the finished product they are aides de memoir to myself. An advantage of this, is that people can "look over my shoulder" and leave messages on my talk and say - that is a load of bolox or whatever. What passing editors though should remember is that when the page is finished it will be pasted into a brand new page and this page deleted - the messy history of errors and trials deleted and the history page itself. The reason you edits were reverted was so that could happen.

When a page is almost finished I generally invite a couple of friends who write similar pages to copyedits and make suggestions, but at the moment this is no more than a draft for what will hopeful one day, very distant, be a Featured article. User space is something any editor can have and many do. Giano 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For Your Information

I know it is not specifically helpful to your (old?) quest for a mention of Northern Irish House destroyed but hey if anyone needs to be informed about these things, its you (plus a possible Reference book) Here: Horace Curzon Plunkett#Recognition abroad

• I appreciate Wikipedia may never get the benefit of the finished product; but let us know if you publish elsewhere. Best of luck for 2008. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Germany

Hiya. Thought you might be interested (or not): I was talking to a German architect in Stuttgart a while back, and he told me they were taught in their course that more damage was done to their country's historic buildings by architect-driven initiatives post-WWII than was done by bombing etc during the war.

So, you know, if you get bored or something and start hankering for a new article, maybe you could do a country-by-country series on this topic. ;) Saltation (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, if I ever get arownd to finishing this one, I will bear that in mind. Giano (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The bloody bot

Giano, the easiest thing to do is put a bit about the SAVE Mentmore campaign into the Mentmore article, including the fact that they published this book. I'd copy over what you have written here myself, but it is your writing and GFDL notwithstanding I'd rather you had a crack at it first. There's nothing that can be done about the bloody bot, it will keep pulling out non-free use images from user space. Of course...you could always finish this, and that would solve the problem.
(*ducks*)
--Risker (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing silly buggers just to humour a lot of jobsworths. Giano (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The jobsworths are now satisfied. You fucking prima donna. --Frostie Jack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck off. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

Time table?

I stumbled upon this page during one of my periodic reviews of IfDs. It's some really beautiful work, Giano. I was wondering if you had any idea what your time table for mainspacing this might be? I'd love to do some work on it, if you think that might help (see John McGraw and John Koethe for some of my work), but I will certainly watchlist it, and help protect it from vandalism or ... umm ... unhelpful "improvements" on the article once it's in the mainspace. Let me know where (or if) you'd like me to help in some way. ^S._D.Jameson 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is going to be finished - some time soon. There are various finished versions in word processor form, which I paste in from time to time to look at. I am very undecided at present about what to include and what not to include. I am tempted to include a lot of legislatory information which is more important than the pretty pictures, but I wonder if it would ever be read. Also there is limited space, it is an article not a book, so the drastic pruning it has had recently has been undecisive too. I'm afraid patience is the essence here because once it's in mainspace I know several people have opinions, and I want it to be balanced before others opinions unbalance it - if that makes sense. Giano (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Just drop a line if there's anything I can do to help. ^S._D.Jameson 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

questions

After reading the article, I had questions that perhaps can be answered in the article by the time you are done with it. The questions relate to the definition of the subject matter and the number of houses that fall in that category. Things like, limits in time, size, location, reason for being destroyed, and degree of destruction. Examples: a castle built in 1000 ad and replaced with a stone castle in 1300 ad, a small country house burned down accidentally, a large city house, a country house that is now in ruins but not totally destroyed. Some idea of the limits and some idea of the numbers would be interesting. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not supposed to be reading the article at present! I think the answers all in the lead anyway, but I note your point, and if we ever get to FAC with this, and I ever finish it, I shall smile like a pirranah with pleasue at your comments. Giano (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More remarks from not supposed to smoke read this

• Inheritance tax and evasion alternatives - was there a chance to establish a perennial estate trust (or any other de-personalized entity) to evade this? If not, this probably needs to be mentioned, otherwise accountants like me will wonder what the hell they were thinking of.
• What is "<advent of> the stately home business"?
• As for the "ignorance of the Nation's heritage was a large contributory factor" in the same paragraph, this makes me wonder. No doubt working class wasn't there, no doubt their lordships themselves had reasons to destroy. But where was Britain's "intellectual elite", the art and history circle, the press after all?

Regards, NVO (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points - There is going to be a stately home section which will clarify "What is "<advent of> the stately home business"?" Don't forget this is still in user space (yeah, it's a job to believe) In my brain the page is finished, so I just write as the whim takes me - so it is still very disjointed at the moment. All will be revealed eventually.

Regarding your other points - I thought I knew all about this subject, but the more I am reading the more I am learning, the problem is not allowing the own research to come through, and not drawing my own conclusions. My own research leads me to believe, most owners either were virtually bankrupt and needed the cash in their pockets, or were consolidating their holdings or very often so convinced that the left wing beliefs prevalent at the time were there to stay they wanted their money out - remember this begun just after they had seen the influx of dispossessed aristocrats from Russia - I think many believed the reds were coming in one form or another. So establishing trusts was seldom an option - although a few did, but only usually after selling off their surplus country houses. I'm thinking of the Devonshire's at Chatsworth and the Bedfords at Woburn, but generally these trust were only formed by the larger and richer - the lost houses were more often the minor seats of the very rich, or the more modest seats of the poorer gentry whose income was dependent on decling agricultural rents.

There is some evidence and a great deal of own research to suggest the press was not bothered, as for the intellectual elite, well they campaigned and fought and lost to save Bowewood and some others, but legislation (remember the left wing Government again) was just not behind them. In the uper house, most hereditary members of the house of Lords were either demolishing their own houses or related to someone who was, so there was little support there either. A second point is that many of the houses, oerhaps even most, were Victorian Gothic, for the greater part of the 20th century it was a despised style, sneered at by the intellectual elite.

As I have said most of the above is own research, so when I find some references to bear me out, then hopefully things will be clearer,and the page may soon one day be in mainspace, but until it is clearer then it has to stay where it is. I don't want it be just another dull re-hash of the same subjects as is written in a 100 places elsewhere. Giano (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I recently ran into the same OR-like trap in the last section of Russian neoclassical revival (same problem, same period, different place) which, incidentally, also brewed in private userspace for over a year :) any comments/fixes are welcome. NVO (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Background

I think it might be an idea to hold in the lead the political context of late 1940s and 1950's, and death duties. Tony Benn and his "Squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" policy; closing down these houses was a delebriate ploy, and at a narrow streach you could bring in the Cambridge five, and the almost blind idealsim of that time. Just an idea. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a date and ref for this speech by Tony Benn (aka Viscount Stansgate) I thought that quote was Denis Healy (I say this without bothering to check - so you are probably correct)I don't know the term Cambridge 5 - can you give me a hint? :-) Giano (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the best books I ever read was John Banville's "The Untouchable"; about as dry and clinical in its examination of human motivation as you can get and I recommend it highly and loudly in the way it approaches the the 5. Start with Anthony Blunt and learn there, in aprticular that even after Khrushche's denouncement certain disenfranchised elements in ENG still held Stalin's dicats as word. Eek. I have to admit a POV here; my family were tided up in the IRA and land grap in IRL of the 1920's - they burned a few, but also bought a few [great houses].

I found out since that the quote there is not from Benn but one of his minions. Still, its an interestingf one; very much of its time - very nieave. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)