Talk:Muswell Hill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photos

I hope you like the phtoos I added, I took a third but there was not enough room. I hope someday there will be a space for it.

Looking down from Muswell Hill

They're a very nice addition to the article.

Yep, well done. Nevilley 23:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PoV check request/Gaudi Shop

I PoV-tagged this because of my serious concern over section # 2 "The 'Gaudi Style' shopfront". Currently it reads as if it were simply written by the shop: there is no pretence whatsoever at NPoV. I would be grateful if cooler heads than mine, perhaps with no local axe to grind (or at least with a bit of detachment! :) ) , would please take a look at this. Currently it is so unencyclopaedic that it is laughable, or would be if it were not so sad. Btw please do not assume that you know my view on the shopfront, which I have not stated and I am not discussing. I am talking about my view of the article. Thanks 138.37.199.199 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just DELETE the whole Gaudi Shop section. It was never that much of a story, there are many issues which aroused far more local controversy, i.e. the Controlled Parking Zones, but which equally don't belong in an encyclopaedia.

If 'Gaudi' would please stop posting self-promotional adverts on wikipedia, and deleting all negative references to his shop, this might make for an article relevant to Muswell Hill, rather than to his 'Art For Art's Sake' emporium. Jeremy, 02:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to make the Gaudi section a bit more neutral, but perhaps we should just remove it if it continues to generate a lot of controversy, although it'd be a shame Corington 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blimey, this one is a bit of a hot potato Corington 10:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"The curvy, protruding design was originally intended to cover a crack in the shop's glass front that would have been too expensive to repair." Yeah, right, who is Chris Ostwald kidding? He custom-built a highly elaborate and highly expensive shop front just to cover up a crack? Surely people must realise that this in itself is an outrageously PoV claim.

Just delete the whole Gaudi shop front section. However many worthy edits are made to this article, 'Gaudi' (Ostwald), or an anonymous user with a Muswell Hill IP address, always come back and turn the thing into one giant advert - just look at the article history. As a Muswell Hill resident, I'm frankly sick and tired of trying to look up some local history in this article and instead finding something which verges between a planning application and flagrant self-promotion . Jeremy, 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of FACT the original reason for the Gaudi design WAS to hide the crack in the main window, which also made the glass liable to fall out on to the street at any time. I was quoted £11,000 for a replacement piece of glass, as it was curved in an S shape and would have had to be custom made. Also as the shopfront was the trade mark of the previous FALCONER shop, I decided to create a new design, that would re-launch the shop as a distictly different shop. I built the shopfront myself, with the help of my friends Vito, Mike and Tim. We used 2 tonnes of sand and 20 bags of cement plus lots of steel rod and expanded metal lath (EML). So the cost of materials and labour was under £1000! (Not a fortune) I didn't post the first article on the Muswell Hill page, but was flattered to find it there one day. I have added a few bits of information I thought were relivent and have accepted the NPOV edits that have been done afterwards. I notice that lots of anti-shop edits are quickly removed by others and not by me. The article is certanly not intended to be an 'advert' for the shop, but a true statement of the events that took place and the effect it has had on the locality. Chris Ostwald, 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody denies that there was a crack in the window in the first place. What is an outrageously POV claim is that this was the sole reason that the current design was chosen. Thousands of shops have had cracked windows which needed replacing, without deciding to go for something which juts out into the street. The design for the shop front was in no small part built to attract as much attention to the shop as possible; it's what every shop window is there for. This one just did it very conspicuously, and without planning permission.

However, pointing out that the shop as it stands completely monopolises the view of the central broadway is difficult to put into the article in NPOV words - perhaps someone could supplement/replace the current picture of the shop on its own with a more sideways-inclined view of the shop compared to the surrounding buildings? Jeremy, 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ermm...I actually designed and built the shopfront, are you really telling me what I was thinking when I did it? Hiding the crack was the 'ORIGINAL' reason, not the 'SOLE' reason. Another thing, the shopfront only 'juts out' by 6 inches in a couple places and is mainly set back from the building line by up to 4 feet! This creates the impression that it hangs out over the pavement. I will dig out a picture of the shopfront from the side if it will make you happy. Chris Ostwald, 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need this much detail about one shop in Muswell Hill on Muswell Hill's page. How about we move all the paragraphs away to another page, e.g. Gaudi-style shop in Muswell Hill, and then just put "Muswell Hill also has a controversial Gaudi-inspired shopfront on its high street" or something simple on this page. On the new page, have a section for pro-shop, one anti-shop, and everyone can add stuff to their hearts' content. What does everyone think? Corington 13:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea, but the way this issue has divided the local community, rather sums up the flavour of Muswell Hill does it not? It would be fun to have a seperate page where people could have a good rant about the shopfront, without feeling the need to edit the Muswell Hill page every day! I think we should still have a small paragraph and a picture on the muswell Hill page though, as most people in Muswell Hill are rather proud of the shopfront (even those who hated it at first). I just wish I could change the council's minds. It might be too late sooner than you think! Chris Ostwald, 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not need a "separate page where people could have a good rant about the shopfront" - the whole point is to avoid rants. I am a little surprised that you have not understood this. As for "as most people in Muswell Hill are rather proud of the shopfront" it's really quite hard to see how you, especially in your position, can possibly make this claim with any hope of it being taken seriously - how can you possibly know? How, precisely, was "most people in Muswell Hill" measured? That's more than 50% of the entire population, is it, or what, established how? I am entirely in favour of getting this topic off the page as far as possible if only to avoid the constant POV-pushing of one interest or another and the feeling that only Chris's view of the issue is allowed to prevail. I would remind readers that Chris is not exactly a disinterested party here and that a reasonable person might perhaps feel that anything he does with this page should be subject to close scrutiny, just to be sure that he is - as I am sure he is, of course - only working to uphold the highest standards of this encylopedia. . JuniorJetKaptain 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My original suggestion for a separate page was an attempt to remove this 'controversial' topic off the Muswell Hill page, as it dominates too much. If it is to be mentioned, then only a sentence or two is really required. But this is unlikely to stay that way I guess, so I'm in favour of removing it - but this has been done in the past and it didn't stay that way for long. What does everyone think? Corington 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now now children! I don't put the 'Gaudi shop' stuff back in, when it gets deleted. There are over 10,000 signatures on a petition to save the shopfront and if anyone would like to see it, just ask. 10,000 is a considerable number of Muswell Hills residents in 'my opinion', but who am I to say. Also over 500 wrote letters to the Council in support, none got any reply. I may have corrected things that are about facts like 'the crack in the glass', being the reason for the design of the shopfront, but I don't get involved that much if I can help it, as there are plenty of others who like to edit away negative stuff anyway. Chris 19:32 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we were being immature in discussing this? Anyway, ignoring your first line of your comment, I think the point actually is whether there should be this amount of stuff on one shop on the Muswell Hill page. I don't think there should, and I was hoping for an informed dicussion on this. Cheers. Corington 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As a long ago resident of Muswell Hill, I found the shopfront stuff quite amusing, but it doesn't rate more than a couple of lines on the wikipedia page, maybe with a link to a campaign page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. seglea 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it down a bit and have been as neutral as possible. Hope it's ok. Corington 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me. 82.45.248.177 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the only shop in Muswell Hill that is truly worthy of an encyclopdia entry is Martyn's? It's been going since 1897, through 4 generations of the same family on the same site and has the only original shop front and interior left on the Broadway. Now that's notable! 86.138.47.77 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plague Pit

I removed this:

"It is said that the diggers of the line came upon a deep pit filled with the remains of plague victims located directly on where the station was planned, and they refused to proceed any further."

This sounds a great story and I would be delighted to see it put back in as long as these points could please be addressed:

• Which station? Ally Pally or Muswell Hill?
• Said by whom? I've lived in MH since 1985 and been interested in the history of the line since then. I have a boringly thick and sad stack of local history and transport books. I can't remember seeing this mentioned anywhere. So "it is said" doesn't quite cut it for me - can we have a verifiable source please?
• The whole plague pit story doesn't seem to hang together. Is this supposed to be why the line stopped? What?? When? In 1939?? That can't be right, it was an old steam line being converted to Underground operations - they wouldn't have had to dig anything that much as they were mostly installing electrics and changing platform heights and stuff. The digging, such as it was, for this project, went on elsewhere. And if the claim is that the plague pit story relates to the original line, then where is the evidence that building ever stopped when it should not have? As I understand it there was an intention to build a line to MH which then extended to Ally Pally, and these intentions were fulfilled. So what got stopped and where?

I can't help wondering if this was a misunderstanding of some sort, or a joke, or something put in as one of these tests to see how long people can keep a Wiki article inaccurate before anyone notices! But if the points above can be addressed then I will apologize most prettily! :) 82.45.248.177 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the King Alfred's School IP 194.66.200.1 [1] which added the plague story on 30 September 2005 has also perpetrated a number of other "funny" edits. Seems to undermine (no pun intended) its credibility yet further. :) Here's the diff: [2] 82.45.248.177 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Plague Victims were found at the bottom of Churchyard Bottom Wood (now known as Queen's Wood) also, so not beyond the bounds of credibility that there was a plague pit elsewhere in Muswell Hill. ElectricRay 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks, but none of this adds any credibility to the ludicrous claim about the railway. 82.45.248.177 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that it?

For an article that's been going 4 years, this really isn't very good. What do we learn about one of London's most desirable residential areas? It's named after a well - It doesn't have a station so people go to work by bus - Some minor celebs live there - It has a funny shop front. Pathetic. I know: "write it yourself then". Maybe I will on day. 86.138.47.77 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We are all waiting with bated breath for your contribution, which will no doubt be excellent. With your gift for community relations, you can be sure that your work will be welcomed and scrutinised most carefully, because the article really needs people like you to improve its standard. Thanks! JuniorJetKaptain 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko address - privacy issues, violates policy on living people????

I don't think the Litvinenko address should have been in the article but I do not know the policies on privacy, living people etc well enough to be sure. If anyone wants to restore that level of detail, I would hope they might be able to perhaps defend it on policy? Otherwise my (uninformed) view is it should stay out pending fuller discussion. 138.37.199.206 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The road name was printed in the "Muswell Hill Times" ("A Spy in our midst" 29/11/06) as well as other publications. Surely that makes it public knowledge? I haven't restored the name as I think the discussion should continue.

Thanks for the civilized response. Hmm ... dunno. Wikipedia is in some ways a lot more public than the MH Times (with all due respect to it of course!) ... I don't know that the "others have already done it" defence is watertight. Really this needs advice from someone who really knows wp policy on these things. I don't feel so strongly about it that I am up for a huge fight - I'd like to see an expert opinion, is really all, and I do think it behooves us to be cautious in things like this till we know for sure, or sure-ish. But I'd be very happy to be guided by others. 138.37.199.206 12:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked someone who I think will know... 138.37.199.206 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not is travel guide or phonebook. So addresses, no matter who lives there or what the circumstances are, do not belong in any encyclopedia. This is WP:NOT policy. Given the circumstances in this case, providing the address also endangers the family members. All mention of the address should be removed and consideration should be made as to whether old versions with that address should be deleted. --mav 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to argue with a Wikipedia Administrator but I can't find any blanket ban on addresses in the WP:NOT policy (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT) Addresses are often given in articles - to take a random example the George Harrison article mentions he lived at "12 Arnold Grove". I do take the point that in these circumstances other family members might be endangered.

This is not Simple Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. The example you give is an exception, since that address itself is famous in that it is a place where fans flock to. Same for Graceland and the White House. --mav

I also feel that Addresses are often given in articles is, with the greatest respect, too broad a defence here. Even if they are, it doesn't make it right. (Cf: spam links are often given in articles - true, but bad! :) ) Quite apart from Mav's (correct) point about WP:NOT there's an article-specific question, should it be here? I don't think the encyclopaedia needs it to be here, and I think the privacy and safety of living individuals can trump most other concerns, and does in this case. 138.37.199.206 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there even any debate at all? The street is a nonexistent street! Mrdini 11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnet bit

I removed the following from the first para. It's interesting but not material suitable for the first paragraph - too much detail on a tangential subject. It would be good if it could be found a home elsewhere but I honestly do not think it was right where it was. "however the area north of Goodwyns Vale is in the London Borough of Barnet, the only area in London that is surrounded on three sides by another council." I'm also slightly worried about the "three sides" assertion and find it unlikely to be strictly true, or perhaps rather dependent on how you define "area", "sides" etc etc. A citation to support this would shut me up, however. :) 138.37.199.206 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)