Talk:Kirkham House

Vandalism to windows
Kirkham House has been in the news after a spate of vandalism to the windows.. Six windows are now boarded up. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, but worth noting.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A year on, the windows are still boarded up, which is a pity. The images in the article are currently out of date.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After two and a half years they have repaired the windows (photo here).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Layout of house
The layout is not given in the English Heritage guide, but it is in the leaflet of the house, which is here and here. The room shown in the lead position of the article is called the Parlour, and the bedchamber shown is the Best Chamber.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of house
Re this edit: the origins of the house, including its name, are unclear. There isn't much point in saying something which cannot be verified, particularly in the WP:LEAD section. The source here says "It was a town house of some pretensions rather than a farmhouse, and may have been the residence of a cleric - an official connected with the Bishop's Palace, or perhaps a priest of the Kirkham Chantry. There aren't enough written records from this period to make any firm judgements about the origins of the house or its name.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the well-informed reader may wonder whether any connection exists with Kirkham of Blagdon? Especially as the Kirkham name is so prominent in Paignton due to the Paignton Chantry. I'm just suggesting it would be helpful to address the question in some way, even if to say "yes, we thought of that too, but there's no evidence". We could add "aren't enough written records from this period to make any firm judgements about the origins of the house or its name", etc to close the question, as you suggest. (NB, as an "informed reader" myself, it was the obvious question in my mind, which WP did not help me with!)(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Perhaps, but not in the WP:LEAD section. It is a bit weird to introduce this and then deny it immediately.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This was added to the history section where it fits in better. Incidentally, one of the things about the house that isn't in the article due to sourcing issues is that during the 1950s the house was used as a substation/storage facility by the local gas company. The building was in poor condition and came close to being knocked down. I was told this during a guided tour of the building but it isn't in any of the written sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The important thing here, Lobsterthermidor, is that you are still adding to articles. You have been well aware for several years that you must not do this.  —S MALL  JIM   10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't got a copy of Pevsner, Nikolaus & Cherry, Bridget, The Buildings of England: Devon, London, 2004, p.844, could you give a brief text summary of what it says? Thanks. The English Heritage history of the building says "There are no documents to tell us exactly when or by whom it was built", which is in line with other sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You must get a copy of Pevsner & Cherry :) Actually p.844 says nothing about Kirkham House at all: it's a description of Blagdon Manor "The seat of the Kirkhams from the c13 to the c17.", followed by a description of that building. I'll amend the referencing to fit the text. Page 841 of the same book contains a good description of Kirkham House; detail from there definitely needs adding to the article. But there's no mention of the Kirkham family. —S MALL  JIM   10:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very acceptable solution, matter now addressed in article, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

Guys, I've added a synthesis tag here, as I think there are problems with the way the sentence "The gentry family of Kirkham of Blagdon, two miles west of Paignton, was prominent in Paignton between the 13th and 17th centuries, but no direct link between the family and the house is known to exist." is now presented. The relevant bit of policy is that we shouldn't "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The first half of the sentence cites the existence of the Kirkham family, but makes no reference to them and the house; the second half states is referenced to the English Heritage page, but the page concerned, rather than supporting this statement, doesn't actually mention the family at all - it just says that we don't know who originally built the house. The implication of the sentence, in combining the two halves, is that a reliable secondary source has actually considered the claim that the house was linked to the Kirkham family in some way and concluded that no direct link exists; in fact, neither source makes any such connection, thus my synthesis concerns. Given that no reliable source appears to be linking the Kirkham family to the house (or denying such a link) could I suggest that we simply delete the sentence? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to remove this as no source makes a direct link between the family and the house. The origins of the house are unclear and the closest sourcing is the leaflet which says "It was a town house of some pretensions rather than a farmhouse, and may have been the residence of a cleric - an official connected with the Bishop's Palace, or perhaps a priest of the Kirkham Chantry." These would have been masses said for a dead person. However, the sourcing also says that the style of the house is consistent with the home of a prosperous merchant. The tapestry in the Best Chamber depicts an ecclesiastical scene with a bishop, but despite a lot of folklore, there has never been any proof that Kirkham House was built for a religious purpose.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest you add that useful bit of info from leaflet ("perhaps a priest of the Kirkham Chantry") to the article and then explain briefly what the Kirkham Chantry was, unless there is an article on it, in which case link it. Reader might quite reasonably, but seemingly incorrectly, assume Kirkham Chantry directly related to Kirkham House.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Whoever built Kirkham House was wealthy, that much is clear. It is a large house by medieval standards.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right to raise this concern, Hchc2009. Lobsterthermidor started this off by adding in his first edit that the name of Kirkham House "refers to" the Kirkham family of Blagdon, which is an assumption that most people would probably make, as he clearly did. But based on the sources we've seen, we know it's not an assumption that we can say anything about. He does have a point, though, that informed readers might reasonably expect this article to say something about whether there is a link or not. What about changing the disputed sentence to "Despite its name, there is no documentary evidence of who built it or when.&lt;English Heritage ref&gt;" and leave the rest to the readers' intelligence? By the way, isn't the house in Kirkham Street? —S MALL  JIM   16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's at the bottom of Kirkham Street, and the building at the top of the street is called Chantry Cottage, which is also a listed building. These buildings were both Grade II listed in March 1951 to prevent possible demolition as they are very old and situated in the historic part of Paignton.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Garden wall collapse
The rear garden wall at Kirkham House has collapsed and is fenced off. Photo here. This was probably caused by all of the recent heavy rain. Hopefully this will get repaired soon.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)