Talk:Hafodunos

I have added in some of the more recent history of the Hafodunos Estate, dealing mainly with the sale process. I will update this again once a sale is concluded.

Access
Does anyone know who i contact to gain access permission to the building? cheers! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Renovation
I have also renovated the page to fit a better design and flow of the history and a much needed reference list! I have a great interest in this building, due to its architecture and history and i hope that people will add some of their photos to this article as i have been unable to get close enough to take any of my own. many thanks Bankhallbretherton (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Szabo and Adam Kaluzny
Repeated attempts have been made to remove the names of the above individuals from the article. As is clear from the sources, both men pleaded guilty to arson and their convictions and sentences are matters of public record. Could the individual IP who wants the names to be removed explain the rationale for their desired change? Removing the details without explanation will only result in reversion of the edit. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A further attempt was made yesterday to remove the above details. As I explained above, the details are verifiable facts that are pertinent to the article - the two men pleaded guilty to arson, which caused massive damage to a site of great historical importance.  If others believe there are reasons why the names of the men should not be included in the article, they need to explain these on the article Talkpage and try to get agreement for their removal.  KJP1 (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - unexplained attempts to remove the names of the two arsonists will be reverted. If you want to have a discussion as to the reasons why you think the names should be removed, this is the place to do it. KJP1 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

COI
Any article connected with Mark Baker seems to end having major problems with sourcing, promotion and conflict of interest. Just a heads-up as it appears to be happening here, too. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Naming of individuals
- As is apparent from the above, there have been repeated, unexplained, attempts to remove the names of the individuals involved. I'm not at all clear why their names shouldn't appear in the article. They pleaded guilty. The fire caused massive damage. Their names in on the public record. Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not unduly fussed either way, as I intimated yesterday. I ended up taking them out mainly because the last remover had also taken out the citation and I didn't want to encourage them to do that again. I don't think the names are terribly important - we're not a rogue's gallery - but if you want to put them back then that's your business. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, you might want to post a query at WP:BLPN first. Someone may have some policy objection. I don't deal that much with BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you have again just reinstated the names without seeking further input, I have asked for you at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Let's just go with whatever consensus emerges, please. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - You said "if you want to put them back then that's your business". So I did. I'm therefore puzzled by the revert. KJP1 (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Fine, but can I suggest we maintain the status quo, with names included, as it was before, yet another, anonymous IP removed them. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We always err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues. If you want to get into trouble about it then that is your business, as I said before, but really you should seek further input as I suggested. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm quite prepared to take that risk. And then if a consensus emerges for them to come out, out they come. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is something odd about your obsession with this naming and shaming in perpetuity. Are you connected with one of the bodies dealing with the building or with the locality? - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

- A few points in response:
 * Contrary to your unfounded and unevidenced suggestion, I have no COI in relation to anything I write on here. Can I suggest you observe AGF, one of our fundamental principles.
 * As is obvious from my editing history, I do have an interest in historic buildings. As such, I am interested in their histories, including when they are seriously damaged.
 * In this instance, two individuals pleaded guilty to starting a ruinous fire, causing great damage to an important building by a notable architect. The judge in the case noted that "the maximum sentence for arson could be life imprisonment and hoped that the sentence would be remembered for the rest of their lives". The names, and convictions, are on the public record. To me, it isn't remotely "odd" that an encyclopedia records these basic facts, as long as they are properly sourced, which they are.
 * All that said, if there is a consensus for their removal, or their inclusion is shown to breach a policy, then I will, of course, follow this. But at present, you've demonstrated neither. KJP1 (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been AGFing. That's why I asked the question rather than accusing you. Your emotive reactions - "ruinous fire", "massive damage" etc - suggest a certain attachment beyond that which most contributors would, in my experience, ascribe to the situation. It was a fire; people were found guilty of illegality regarding it. Anything more seems like excessive finger-pointing. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We clearly have different interpretations of AGF. Re. my “emotive reactions” (again, with your personal opinions), check any of the sources, published here or elsewhere, for a very clear assessment of the scale of the damage caused. As to “excessive finger-pointing”, you’ve obviously moved from your earlier position; “I’m not unduly fussed either way”. KJP1 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I cant really see the point of naming non-noteworthy individuals, the fact that two men were convicted is all that is needed in what is an article on the building. MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the input. For me, the who/why is significant, in the context of a ruinous fire that has had such an impact on a significant building. But others may disagree, in which case there will be a consensus for removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Got to support the removal of the names from 15 years ago, these are not exactly well know widely published criminals and nameing them really adds nothing to the story, so I fall on the err on the side of caution as wp:blp requests. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about the building, and the fire is simply a part of its history and the names are not necessary to increase any understanding of the incident. It almost reads oddly to have that much detail, as the individuals concerned were not otherwise notable in their own right, or connected to the building in any other way. In that case, WP:BLP mandates leaving it out. Curdle (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is of great interest in so far as why would two people burn down a beautiful building in which they have no interest? One person acting alone might be psychotic. Two working together, with premeditation and planning, are hardly likely to be. What was their thought process? That must/should be of major interest. 85.255.237.134 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Help desk/Archives/2023 August 9 - contrary to some of the views expressed above, there doesn’t appear to be anything in BLP that would prohibit the naming of convicted arsonists. May revisit this. KJP1 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)