Talk:Felbrigg Hall

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Can anyone confirm please that Robert K-C's brother was called Richard ("Dickie")?

Jonathan Headland 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ao much here... Victuallers (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NT controversy

As editors we have no opinions, even if as individuals we have strong ones. With an incident like this we have to be cautious. My problems are still technical. I'm not sure if LGTB is left, right or centre. Communist Russia (left) was among the worst offenders. However, the issue is certainly political, and it's unusual for the NT to place itself in this kind of position. So caution says include it, but avoid any implication that the NT period has been marked by NT behaviour of this kind.Bmcln1 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has attracted significant attention in major UK newspapers, which constitute WP:Reliable sources, and for that reason certainly warrants coverage in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some... press" is fine, thank you. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was it only right-wing press? I don 't think the protest was just political. Northmetpit (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided explicitly says that it was the right-wing press that rallied against the Trust's move and called for the charity to back down. Stating merely "Some press" conceals this fact (for what purpose?). As far as I am aware, the newspapers that did criticise the Trust were the Daily Mail and The Telegraph (I would imagine that The Sun did too, but I am not sure of this), both of which take a strong conservative and right-wing angle to their coverage. Conversely, more centrist and left-wing sources like the BBC, The Independent and The Guardian did not. This was not an issue where the mainstream press acted in a uniform manner; rather it was divided along ideologically partisan lines. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. The point I'm trying to make it wasn't just the press that criticised the trust. That's why my original edit (that was deleted) included among others.Northmetpit (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could certainly reinstate "and others". Midnightblueowl, I would gladly see the two dailies named. Thanks to you both. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I will add a slight change of text later, if OK.Northmetpit (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source used does not explicitly name the two publications, it merely states "right-wing press". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we get rid of this whole nonsensical section, with its homophobic misrepresentations? The idea Ketton-Cremer wasn't openly gay is ludicrous. He was flamboyantly homosexual and everyone in the area who cared knew it. It's OR, but years ago I was told by a group of openly gay people in Sheringham that this area was much more tolerant than the norm ever since the fifties because of the popular K-C: he was accepted, and as a result, so were others.

As the subsequent correspondence in the EDP made clear, the only people objecting to the NT telling the story were incomers with no knowledge of the local history. Any of the letters in that correspondence would do for a RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.12.182 (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one cared enough to comment, section now removed. It's just not a sufficiently notable incident for Wikipedia's attention - this is not a current-affairs site. 185.24.12.182 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Sheringham's voice[reply]

Well, since you still can't be bothered to give any reason why the section should remain, I'll remove it again.

This is adequately sourced, and gained national attention. Removal is not warranted. Scr★pIron^IV 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and in the news doesn't make it notable by WP's standards. This is not a current affairs blog, it's an encyclopedia. Do you really think it'll be of interest a decade down the line?

If you genuinely think this is notable, shouldn't we also have a section for every other mention (ever) of Felbrigg Hall in the national press?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22felbrigg+hall%22+-gay+-%22eastern+daily+press%22&source=lnms&tbm=nws

I'd have thought 'boy killed by falling tree branch' is more notable, just for one example.

Please feel free to read WP:NNC. The event drew more than enough attention - The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and BBC News. This is not merely a "mention". If you know of some other event that has received significant coverage for inclusion into this article, feel free to add it. Scr★pIron^IV 18:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, perhaps notable was the wrong word to use. I was thinking more along these lines: WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. (Apologies if I've messed up those links, I'm sure you can view the source and work out what I meant. First time I've done one of those. And BTW what does the +R in your edit summary mean?)

Does that Google News link work for you, or did I trim it too much? There's another story (in my set of results) just in the last couple of months that's sufficiently well-reported in the national press to merit inclusion under the guidelines you're offering, as I understand them. Are you saying it would be no bad thing if this article was, say, 10,000+ words? 100,000+? Is no amount of detail too much, once a topic is notable?

Is there a WP policy on proportionality or some such I should read before commenting further?

Your link worked just fine, and I use "+r" as a shorthand for "added a reply". A good place to start for that would be the links under the first I gave, including WP:UNDUE. A freak accident where the Hall is not found liable is an interesting case; accidents happen everywhere, and the location itself was found not found to be significant to the legal case. Had the Hall, or the Trust, been found culpable, then it would absolutely warrant inclusion. As it stands, it is borderline at best, and I would debate against including it in the article. The same would apply to the minor squabbles about volunteer hours. It is not about size, but significance. If there were enough significant incidents at the Hall that received national attention, then the article's size would not be an issue, until it became to large to read, and would probably be split into multiple articles. As for this particular event that we have been discussing, LGBT rights is a significant topic in modern culture, and gets wide media attention. One of the nice things about a living encyclopedia like Wikipedia is that as topics become less relevant to the current culture, it can be modified. I hope this helps! Scr★pIron^IV 18:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for the examples, they help to clarify. It seems to me that an article on something like Felbrigg Hall could be too detailed, but if WP policy is that it can't be, this isn't the place to argue it.

I'm struggling with the link to WP:UNDUE, though. I did look at that before my last reply, and it didn't seem to me to be dealing with the same kind of thing. I don't think including this information gives undue weight to anything except the information itself. (I said at the start that I think including it gives more of a platform to homophobia than is deserved - I think that's the NPOV way to put it - and WP:UNDUE is certainly relevant to that.) Digression aside, I've read the policies you suggested and it's hard to find one that's directly related.

My broader point is that it's _boring_. This is (sadly, not that my opinion is relevant) daily stuff in this country. It might be relevant to an article about homophobia or intolerance (or at a pinch, one about the National Trust), but I don't see that it's relevant to Felbrigg Hall merely because it happened there.

(And I'm copying your shorthand, hopefully it's commonly understood.)

I would disagree that it is relevant to the National Trust or homophobia articles; it is just too minor an incident to warrant inclusion there. Conversely, it very much warrants inclusion here at this article; after all, when was the last time (if ever) that Felbrigg Hall made national news? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Words on the balcony

Look at the front of the house there are three words on the balconies , I cant make them out but they are striking, and I think they should therefore be included . They are probably a family motto . Can anybody find out what they are ? Hmcst1 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Found this on the Norfolk Heritage site Gloria deo in excelsis. In latin meaning Glory to God in the highest.Northmetpit (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

awesom. Ive updated with this info. Its close but not exactly the same to the phrase Gloria in excelsis Deo which has a wikipedia page. My latin isnt good enough to know whether they should linkHmcst1 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit. I'm afraid my Latin is not up to scratch. But after a little research the words seem to mean the same thing, so it should be OK to link. Even so I'm sure a Latin speaker will put it right. Northmetpit (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felbrigg Hall. 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) 21:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reads as though only the Wyndom family owned it. Why?

It sounds to me that the Windhams were not the original owners? Why is there no history on the house itself? It appears to be focused too much on politics rather than the house. I have no way of researching this from where I sit, but surely someone can? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 09:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's all to do with whatever can be found in sources, per the pre-1475 Felbrigg family and the gaps in the Wyndham's. I am presuming that what you are referring to as 'politics' might be, partly, the NT controversy section (recentism), which takes up about a quarter of this short article. This does point to something that can be problematic in articles, i.e. that one issue can be written on extensively, that can overweight a rather short article, and give the impression that this could be the most important aspect, which typically it isn't. My view is that overall balance can be maintained by restricting the size of overweighting sections in short articles. A bigger structural hole is that of the Hall's architecture; which is usually a large section in such articles... I'm sure a lot more could be found here. I can't understand the 'C' rating, when there is obviously so much missing; I shall reduce it to a 'start'. Acabashi (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]