Talk:Henley-on-Thames

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

Killing / upper-class?[edit]

Is the recent murder in the village centre relevant? SuzanneKn 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better phrase than "Upper Class" to describe Henley? It's not strictly true, as while the town is certainly "posh" by any reasonable standard, it's not quite as if everyone who lives there is an aristocrat of some kind (which is what the current wording suggests to me). Gpjt 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it did grate with me too. I deleted it along with the word quiet. Perhaps someone has real data on its quietness and its socio-economic class. I'm still hung up on the issue about the murder. I don't think it should be included here as it doesn't define the town per se. I'm not sure about whether the police has any leds or not either. SuzanneKn 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: upper-classness - thanks! Agreed re: the murder - it sounds quite terrible, but I don't see that it really contributes - unless it's just a referenceable way of saying "but it's not all peaceful and idyllic"? Gpjt 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be bold and remove it pasting it here in case anyone else has a different view SuzanneKn 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community was shocked when local telecoms executive, Stephen Langford, was kicked to death outside the part-time local police station on Saturday 9 December. 2006[1]

Makes sense. Cheers, Gpjt 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who lives in the town is upper-class or a millionaire, but it is an extremely wealthy place - I believe the average property price is around £600,000 - that fact should be mentioned on the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are property prices truly notable? Certainly making the leap from the average property price to making an assumption about the class of residents would be original research. --Blowdart | talk 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what was initially reported as the first murder to take place in Henley for about 50 years turned out to not be homicide after all. It was ruled that the man who died was the aggressor, and that the youths who killed him were acting in self-defence by fending off an attack by a drunk man who began the fight and who was significantly bigger than the youths. The details would have to be clarified in order for it to be on the article, and even then I'm not sure it's notable enough to be included. If the overall crime rate is well-below average, and that fact can be cited, then that could be added to the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the ruling is covered [here and here and here --Blowdart | talk 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Sun newspaper

Cultural links[edit]

Blowdart, what is it that makes you think you are the final arbiter of the inclusion of semi-commercial cultural links (i.e. river and rowing, Jonkers, Henley Standard etc)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.9.30 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Jonkers a cultural link and not just a spam link to their shop? I'd be interested to know your thinking. Now if you could prove its notability; and that of the other bookshops of which there are a few, then that might look a lot less like spam. --Blowdart | talk 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blowdart is entirely correct in removing this persistent SPAM and has the full support of other editors. I would have removed it, but left it because Blowdart can be relied on to deal with it properly. Motmit (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must acknowledge an interest, as I am a customer of Jonkers and consequently know the owners. Even so to question whether they are notable within an article on Henley on Thames is almost too ludicrous to debate. They are generally regarded as one of the leading rare book experts in the country if not the world. A brief scan of their the net shows countless independent references (The Independent listed them as one of the best bookshops in the country in 2005, they are referred to several university journals from China to California etc). Further, their 'shop' is more like a museum than a retail outlet, displaying some of the most remarkable and unique literary artefacts. Henley is very lucky to have them and I would have thought would want to be associated with excellence in any sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.9.30 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they were as notable as you say then where is their wikipedia article? I'd start by attempting that first, and then linking to their wikipedia article from within the Henley page. As it stands you're simply adding a link to a shop; and there are multiple booksellers in Henley who may well be just as notable. Further attempting to cast them as a book exhibition is disingenuous; they are a commercial entity and attempt to disguise them makes it look more and more like a spam link. --Blowdart | talk 09:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not describe them as anything or even post a link to their site, I merely reversed the unverified and unjustified deletion of that link. However, they do have exhibitions, as I have attended them, so there is nothing disingenious in that part of the description. So everything you have just said is entirely wrong. If, after all I have said, you still cannot understand that it would be a relevant and interesting, even notable link, then you will just have to accept it is beyond your comprehension and replace the link.82.69.9.30 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously - personal attacks in edit summaries and removal of talk page content by this IP address in support of this bookshop are not actually doing any favours to the bookshop itself.Motmit (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Motmit (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an unsavoury cocktail of mob rule and prejudice. It is the reason that Wikipedia is not and can never be taken seriously as an online resource. I, for one, do not wish to have any part in this sort of behaviour.82.69.9.30 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

What is the evidence that Henley suffered from both parties in the civil war rather than benefiting? SovalValtos (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henley-on-Thames. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dumouriez[edit]

Is the tomb of Dumouriez still visible in St Mary's parish church ? If it is a case, a photo upload to Commons would be appreciated. Baronnet (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if it is visible or indeed anything about it Baronnet, but I may be able to have a look soon and I know how to take photos. You say "in St Mary's", does that mean it is inside the church rather than just in the graveyard?SovalValtos (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Baronnet I have done some photos of his funerary monument in St. Mary the Virgin H-o-T which I will post to commons in a day or so. It was above the south door in the Jesus chapel. According to a notice nearby, which is presumably copyright and cannot be uploaded to commons, he is actually buried in a chancel crypt with just the inscription "ICI REPOSE LE GENERAL DUMOURIEZ". I have a note of the text of the notice. Other than a historical resume it mentions the 1794 Hamburg memoirs and the enlarged 1823 Paris edition. As the monument is quite high above the door and poorly lit, special arrangements with the church authorities might have to be taken for getting a better image than mine.SovalValtos (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now uploaded to commons and available for use if thought suitable. Three are as taken and could benefit from editing.
  • 7814 Du Mouriez funery monument
    7814 Du Mouriez funery monument
  • 7815 Du Mouriez funerary monument above doorway
    7815 Du Mouriez funerary monument above doorway
  • 7819 Du Mouriez monument relative to doorway
    7819 Du Mouriez monument relative to doorway
  • 7823 Du Mouriez funerary monument location in Jesus chapel
    7823 Du Mouriez funerary monument location in Jesus chapel

The spelling Du Mouriez I have used is as on the monument rather than the more usual Dumouriez.SovalValtos (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only read your messages now. Thank you so much for the photos ! Baronnet (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert House School[edit]

I think the article on this non-notable school should be merged into the Henley article. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sense to me.SovalValtos (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambitus (talk • contribs) 05:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear why singling out a school, out of several, and state it is non-notable in order to merge it. AI still has work to do to implement the simplest of logic. A bit of subject knowledge would come a long way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7907:5800:A1F9:E842:942:BEF7 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary and prep schools usually don't have independent notability (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), which is why this school has been proposed; so, to oppose the proposal all that is needed is independent notability satifying Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Klbrain (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information and (independent) references to the article and believe there is enough notability for a separate article. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given the independent sources supporting independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Turk[edit]

Big Turk does not have their own Wikipedia article, so they should not be included in the notable people section. I cannot remove it myself because of WP:3RR so I request that someone else removes it. Hillelfrei talk 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Hillelfrei talk 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henley-on-Thames&oldid=1212800902"