Jump to content

Talk:Killiechassie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion

[edit]

This should have never been deleted. It's clearly a notable historic estate and a B listed building. I understand why Rowling might be concerned about security, but this is documented in all the books and newspaper articles about her and we're not censored. She only bought the estate in 2001, it's existed for centuries and it's our purpose as an encyclopedia to cover notable topics which are covered in multiple reliable publications (which this is). This would still be notable regardless of Rowling acquiring of the property and we'd have the article anyway. It would be wrong to delete a perfectly notable article purely because of "censorship". We could avoid adding coordinates if security is a valid concern, but all you have to do is google them anyway so that would be pretty pointless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work. I had this on my to-do list and you have saved me a job now, thanks. I have some other tid-bits to add that I came across when browsing some days ago and will nominate it as a DYK for good measure. The detail I'd like to know more about is the B-class listing. I made a search for listed-status myself but couldn't find it. Perhaps I'm just not familiar with the Scottish way of doing this. Is there a trick to this, please? Andrew (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, [1] is all I could find, a brief description. I suppose Category B is more equivalent to Grade II status in England and Wales and Category A to Grade I listed. I was hoping that British History Online would have something. BTW via the grant's committee I now have a book on Althorp which I'll hopefully be getting to GA in coming weeks. That might also interest you. Now that's an important country estate!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think understand the listing issue now. What's actually listed is a dovecote - a particular feature of the house. I found that listing earlier and was looking for something covering the main building too. Due to the way this appears in the listing entries, this has been misinterpreted as a placename. I shall adjust the article accordingly, provided the edit conflicts don't get too bad - I'm in the middle of something else too... Andrew (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Later proprietors of Killiechassie included the Robertson family, who belonged to the house of Struan" you might want to check that, the source says they were the first proprietors. I've finished working on it, so don't worry about edit conflicts!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have time for much more right now myself. The best history of the place I've found is this, which seems to be the work of the local historical society. We may need some more sources to back this up but I suppose they have worked from the local records. What we need most now is a better photo. There are lots of good ones out there but without full rights. I might get up to Scotland at Easter myself and I'll try to work this into my itinerary so I can take a picture myself. Andrew (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors have already asked for the deletion of the early version in the last fortnight, mainly on the grounds of: notability is not inherited. Why haven't the JK Rowling references to the house been deleted as requested by reasonable debate and consensus? Whether the new article can stand as an entry on this country estate is another matter - the JKR references however have not yet been deleted.
Debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killiechassie_House
Angela MacLean (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see no-one has asked for the JKR information to be removed: there was a discussion about the notability of the subject, not about whether certain information should or should not be included. As there are a number of regular sources that mention JKR in connection with this property, why shouldn't we include it? - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've just contradicted yourself. If a subject is not notable - according to Wikipedia guidelines - then it should not be included. That's why we have notability as to what should or should not be included. The sources show there is a link to JK Rowling, however Wikipedia is not a copy of Hello magazine nor is it a tied together version of Google. It is in fact an encyclopedia: notability is not inherited. This fact has also been confirmed by valued and considered debate. The editors debated on the relationship between the house and the celebrity and came to their conclusions. Angela MacLean (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've not contradicted myself at all, I'm afraid. A previous deletion discussion—based on a previous version of the article—decided that what we had was insufficient to keep. This new version of the page carries more reliable sources than the previous one; many of those sources about the house pre-date the ownership or interest of JKR. This is not about any "inhereted" fame of the property in connection with a writer, but about the house and estate itself. Personally I don't care what decision was arrived at previously: I'm looking at an article that carries sufficient sources to exist, with or without its current sleb owner. This is hardly a Hello page; it's more Country Life (and yes, Country Life is a source for the article: Hello isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I supported deletion, but the house/estate seems to be notable now that material has been added to the article. It's a bit unfortunate that it wasn't added before the deletion, but the article has been saved now. The information about Rowlings owning the estate is pertinant, and verifiable with reliable sources. That's not enough to justify an article on its own, but it's certainly enough to justify including the Rowlings information in the current article. I don't think there's a wp:BLP issue here in mentioning that she owns it and was married there. Maybe mentioning the price she paid could be challenged on BLP grounds... not sure. Meters (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose removing the info on Rowling. There's dozens of reliable sources which document it and we wouldn't be doing our job if we removed any mention of it. It hardly reads like a Hello magazine. There's not that much about her in the article as it is, it's mostly about the historical estate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Killiechassie. 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) 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person doxxing

[edit]

Hi guys

I'm concerned that due to recent notoriety that the article shouldn't contain a reference to that person at all.

Regardless of the events of the incident that's being reported, This is the first google search result that comes up for X Y "Castle" and directly mentions the private owner's identity. Other results may dox the owner, but that isn't a problem for this page specifically.

I would argue that this is a breach of their privacy, and a potential threat to their safety. While recent acts have not been too distressing, it only takes one passionate individual with this information to be unreasonable and do something that crosses the line.

I would like the necessary edits made to protect the owner of the property. Personal conflicts with the owner do not warrant witch-hunting or tracking down where they live.

As this page has little activity on the talk page I will make the edits myself after 24 hours. Anyone who opposes may do so here.

edit: I've changed the article prematurely to encourage discussion on the topic.

Thank you.

Fully support Anonymising the owner's identity. Declanhx (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there specific information in here that's not connected to one of the reliable source already on the page? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through it now, I would argue that even if a reliable source has the information, it's not moral to have it broadcasted on here right now. We are talking about the private residence of a famous person so we have to be careful. Declanhx (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A daily telegraph article from 2001 references this. However, it's at a time where it wasn't easy for people to simply "look up" where someone lives nor was it a time where outrage festered on the internet. Furthermore, the 2001 article isn't as prominent on google searches and is locked behind a paywall. I would strongly recommend we don't allow the information to remain on the page, Unless you have a counter argument that can prove otherwise? Declanhx (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any sources for the address and coords, so I've removed those. WP:BLPPRIVACY would be the operative policy here for the remaining content; I don't see anything else that violates that policy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OhNoitsJamie , Why has your opinion changed from this above comment? You are welcome to add to the discussion when I reply to the user below. Declanhx (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has not changed, and I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing that I've already explained twice here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OhNoitsJamie Talk, Please see the new section below. I would appreciate the sources you are referencing. If these are not provided within a reasonable timeframe I will assume they do not exist, thank you. Declanhx (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh get off it, you removed one of the sources yourself. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Primefac, remember to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith , I didn't intend to remove the source. Thank you. Declanhx (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Declanhx, remember to don't template the regulars. Assuming good faith runs into a wall when we see actual action; we can't assume every vandalism was an accident. Now that you've said it was an accident, that's fine, but there was nothing remotely "bad faith" in Primefac's statement. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring up four points:
  1. The incident described by the previous editor was legally not doxxing, as explained by police, despite the fact that the individual in question probably didn't like it. That said, protests outside of celebrities' homes have happened in the past.
  2. Information as to who owns this house is easily available elsewhere from entertainment sites and magazine articles, plus it's literally a tourist landmark and its owner is pointed out as such.
  3. I'm worried that this may either constitute as special treatment of this particular person, or set a bad precedent. Currently, I'm not aware of any other homes owned by famous people that have their info scrubbed on this site. If this is going to be a thing going forward, it would mean that any public figure facing criticism - and that's A LOT, mind you - can just retroactively disappear info about themselves even if it's in the public's interest.
Even if this weren't an issue, the owner being a public figure is a point of notability and would be useful purely for informational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.180.204 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should bring up my main concern. I'm afraid that instead of protecting anyone, attempts to obscure information about the owner are an attempt at censorship, and as the header to this page says, Wikipedia isn't censored. It would be the same, IMO, as if Michael Jackson were still alive but the Wikipedia article for Neverland Ranch suspiciously had info on him scrubbed out because some people might theoretically "doxx" him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.180.204 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ownership of the house is well-sourced in multiple reliable sources. The actual address and coordinates are not, and they have been removed per WP:BLPPRIVACY. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the suppressed content was the (unsourced) address and coordinates, i.e. the specific location of the house. If anyone wants a review of any of the removed content that happened to be suppressed during the period when the address/coords were present, please make a request and I will post it here for review (assuming the content is sourced). Primefac (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no issue with the coordinates and address not being up here, but if you take a look at the edit history, there's also been attempts to suppress information about the ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.180.204 (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Unsigned user. Remember to use four '~' s at the end of your reply so that wikipedia signs the contribution for you. You're a new user so it's something to note for next time.
On the topic of being a new user, remember that in this situation you must also state that you either agree or disagree with a proposal so that we can come to a consensus. The best way to edit an article is by coming to an agreement on the talk pages first, and then after a consensus we make the edits. We don't edit first and then make reasoning on the talk pages. Repeatedly undoing edits is edit warring and not allowed on wikipedia, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring
In response to your points:
1) The police have stated that it was legally not *Intimidation*, not doxxing. The 3 individuals were protesting, and this is not illegal. However, they DID dox J.K. Rowling in order to find her address. The laws of the internet aren't up to date to talk about doxxing being illegal or not, However, that is irrelevant regardless, as it IS doxxing and therefore shouldn't be allowed to be abetted by this wikipedia article.
2) Private information that has been leaked doesn't make it public. It's not our problem if the information exists elsewhere, it's up to THEIR website to remove information that doxxes people, not ours. We can only mitigate the problem by not encouraging it, and by removing it. To put this into an analogy for you, imagine that you're arguing that we should be able to steal from someone because they recently got mugged. It's not a valid argument, you can't act like something immoral or illegal or against the rules is OK because someone else is doing it. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a gossip website. We have to have a duty of care towards people. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources
3) Your lack of knowledge of wikipedia isn't a valid argument. "I'm not aware of celebrities whose info has been scrubbed from the site", How would you know?, As stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources , You must NOT include an address or other contact information in a wikipedia article. That's the only precedent you need, and if you have issue with that, you should talk with the admins of wikipedia about it.
An address is none of your business, it's private information and if that's not to your liking contact your MP and have the law changed. We don't get to retrieve Margot Robbie's (Or any attractive person's ) private photos because it's "Public interest". They're private and that's the end of it. It's not a problem for the article to exist, it IS a problem for J.K.Rowling's ownership to be leaked on here. What exactly do you need her address for in order to "criticise" J.K. Rowling anyway? I would love to hear your argument on this.
4) Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech#What_Wikipedia_is_not .
Sources have stated that Michael Jackson lived at the ranch, No source has been provided that explicity names this castle or her address. This will be a topic of another debate which I will make in a moment.
Thank you for your cooperation, Respectfully, Please don't make further edits if we come to a conclusion you don't like. Kind regards. Declanhx (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources for notable owner

[edit]

Hello.

Could any users please provide sources that state that the notable owner owns the property.

The sources must be publicly available information. Private information that has been leaked isn't public. From what I've seen articles about this do not explicitly reference their address, even if pictures of the property have appeared in content.

I do understand that some users are rather passionate about this topic so it would be great to come to a consensus.

Otherwise, this information shouldn't be included, under reasons explained above but more specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources

Any input would be appreciated. Declanhx (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the "References" section in the article; you'll see that the very first source, from The Herald, addresses this. Other reliable sources include The Times, which is explicitly listed at WP:RSP. Searching Google news for "Rowling" and "Killiechassie" yields more results if necessary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the herald: "Neither he nor Colman Getty, Rowling's PR firm based in Edinburgh, would comment further and refused to clarify if Killiechassie would now become the main home for the author, her daughter, and Neil Murray, her partner. Rowling currently lives in London."
From the times: "JK Rowling is installing security gates at her £2 million home in Edinburgh as part of a revamp of her Scottish estates. The author also had plans approved to erect a pair of 1.2 metre high gates outside Killiechassie estate near Aberfeldy."
Neither reference it as her home, they word it as such.
At which point I would argue whether the owner is even relevant in the first place, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content#Biographical_details
I believe my edit of it being a private property suffices in this respect.
You will need to provide further sources, it's not my job to make your argument for you. If you insist that it's well sourced, show the sources.
Thank you for your cooperation. Declanhx (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You put in the header for this section "notable owner". The question is not how often she visits, or if she considers it "her home", it's whether or not she owns it, which is an emphatic "yes". Drop the stick. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You unfortunately don't get to dictate what the argument "is" or "isn't", and demanding that you have the last word isn't helping your case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content#Biographical_details clearly states that this shouldn't be in the article regardless. You are free to argue on why the owner is relevant and why not stating that it's privately owned doesn't suffice. Declanhx (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names applies. It doesn't matter if it's sourced, it matters if it's relevant. Declanhx (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there is this source that Declan removed, and three sources at J._K._Rowling#Remarriage_and_wealth that verify it. I think it's time to drop the stick of "let's pretend we don't know who owns Killiechassie." Primefac (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Primefac. Please see my reply to jaime. Declanhx (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply to Jamie boils down to shouting "I can't hear you!" with your fingers in your ears. This is old news, the horse left the gate some time ago. This is not even something vaguely resembling doxxing, and the Streisand effect is starting to kick in. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage of coordinates

[edit]

The coordinates were removed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killiechassie&diff=prev&oldid=1066346257 as supposedly unsourced and past revisions were suppressed, but Wikipedia:Oversight states suppression is "used within strict limits to protect privacy, remove defamatory material, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations", not for merely unsourced claims. Furthermore, they are not unsourced as the article itself provides multiple maps of the estate, including an OpenStreetMap link including said coordinates in the URL. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to censor information about historic structures and ignore its own policies to cater to the whims of notorious bigots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.78.209 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to paraphrase an internal discussion the OS team had last year: JKR does not own the entire estate (just the house) and so giving the coordinates of her house are inappropriate because that is not what this article is about; it is about the estate which just so happens to have a house on it owned by a famous person. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I presume you have no objection to including the coordinates 56.631 N, 3.855 W which are both implicit in the embedded map and have an implied uncertainty comparable to the dimensions of the estate. -- 188.64.78.209 (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for everyone who might have an opinion, but that does seem non-specific enough to merit inclusion. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killiechassie&oldid=1207976263"