Talk:Wentworth Woodhouse

Untitled
Lots of unsubstantiated claims of 'class war spite' on the part of the government - this violates NPOV and is most likely complete garbage.
 * Not true. It is referenced and correct. --Counter-revolutionary 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The assertions in the main article are correctly referenced from Catherine Bailey's recent book and the Sunday Times article. Read them if you don't believe it! --BaseTurnComplete 11:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just because someone makes an assertion in print doesn't make that assertion true.

Exile 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't, however "unsubstatiated" and "a violation of NPOV" it is not: the assertions are correctly cited from two sources. Unless a citable reference to the contrary can be found, to assert otherwise in the main article is original research. BaseTurnComplete 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely it should therefore be re-written in order to make it clear that this is a particular cited article's point of view, then, rather than blindly asserting "an act of class war" as fact? After all, Wikipedia:NPOV does specifically state "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.26.191 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bailey makes that assertion without drawing a distinction as to whether it is fact or her opinion. As a background to this Shinwell was rather a radical left-winger, on record as wanting to destroy the coal-owning aristocracy, so even if it is her opinion in my eyes it is an uncontroversial one.


 * Therefore such verbal contortions are unnecessary: if we had to constantly qualify sources in the way you seem to want here it would make Wikipedia very cumbersome and the process of citing an ultimately fruitless task because facts and opinion are not explicitly and neatly demarcated in citable texts, which leaves it wide open to interpretation. You can see the way the discussions could go... is it a fact... an opinion grounded in solid facts...  hypothesis on shaky ground... wild unsubstantiated speculation?  Are things that look like facts really facts or do we have to take the author's word for it?  Where do we draw the lines for what is citable and what should be qualified as merely the opinion of the cited author?


 * So in the absence of a citable source to the contrary, I've removed the neutrality tag and left the text unchanged. If you don't like it, find a citation to the contrary, then we could write it up as a contentious assertion with an opposing view!  Oh and please sign your comments.  BaseTurnComplete (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?
IMHO this is turning into a good article (lower case!) Maybe it should be nominated as a Good Article? BaseTurnComplete (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please don't put it through that! a good article is simply a good article: it doesn't need to be vetted by some incompetent panel of teeners. There are many ways to spend time at Wikipedia: that's unlikely to be a fruitful one. --Wetman (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

wow I like staff like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.250.197 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
The coordinates for the house actually designate the stables. The house is a little ways East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.179.176 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Contextualisation
The article contains a claim with respect to coal-mining on the estate: "the decision has been, and is, widely seen as useful cover for an act of class-war spite against the coal-owning aristocracy." This is clearly a strong claim, which needs good sourcing. Initially I removed a stronger version of this, as poorly sourced opinion. User:Johnbod then reinstated a modified version, with the comment "dubious probably POV edit" - although I'm not a fan of such terms, it's true that the original text was dubious and probably represented an editor's point of view. Based on the discussion on this talk page, above, I added a note that this is the view of the Sunday Times Magazine - rather weak, but it's something. Johnbod then reverted this, noting that the talk page is not a reliable source (and, therefore, presumably, we cannot assume that the Sunday Times Magazine said anything of the sort). While I'm dubious about this, clearly if they suspect that the claim does not appear as stated, it needs to be removed. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Sunday Times Magazine did say this, the contextualisation is essential. Warofdreams talk 09:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was said editor. I am, however, happy with the reword as it sits today.  There's plenty in Bailey, the STM piece (pity about the paywall) and as Johnbod says below Dan Cruickshank's TV programme that covers this.  The paragraph is sprinkled with good references that point to citeable discourse on this matter.  I am not aware of any sources to the contrary.  Please go and read the sources if this assertion doesn't sit well with your POV.  You may be educated. Also, see my comments above: we've been here before several times. BaseTurnComplete (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The ST piece is in fact used as a reference just after; however with the News International database now behind a paywall I can't see it. But the claim is and was made very widely, indeed in every source that is not strictly architectural that I have ever seen on the house - Dan Cruickshank's recent tv programme on the house, the book "Black Pearls" (used a reference here) etc. I don't have anything to hand I can use to reference it, but the claim should not be made to sound like a stray assertion in a paper some years ago. It is an important point - for those not interested in architecture one of the most important in the article. Giano seems to have retired again, but there are probably others who can add further. If you feel the need to tag it, do so, but it should not be removed. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a positive justification anywhere of the National Coal Board's manner of attack at Wentworth Woodhouse, always refered to in passing as a disaster? Today, "There is a claim for damage against the Coal Authority for at least £100m, in respect of the damage caused by the deep and open cast mining, which is being disputed." ("Plans for the restoration of Wentworth Woodhouse revealed"). The segment on Wentworth Woodhouse in "The Country House Revealed" touched on this.

Longest façade
The article says:

>> Its East Front is 606 feet (180m) long, making it the longest country house façade in Europe.

Surely, though, the 325-meter-long Catherine Palace near Saint Petersburg beats this hands down.

Or is the term "country house" understood as fundamentally different to "palace"? What would the distinction be, then?

Here's what the article on English country house has to say:

>> The great houses are the largest of the country houses; in truth palaces, built by the country's most powerful – these were designed to display their owners' power or ambitions to power. [8]

>> [8] Girouard, p2-12.

>> Girouard, Mark (1978). Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History.

Primaler (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Open to the public?
Can the public visit any part of the house or grounds? I don't think this article says anything about it. 213.205.251.28 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Largest private house?
Can it be true? Is Wentworth Woodhouse really the largest private house? I thought Blenheim Palace was the largest. --79.214.37.208 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article only says "one of England's largest houses". Don't forget WW is 2 large country houses together. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No that's not true. In the second line from the top it says: "It is also the largest private house in the United Kingdom..." (not "one of the largest"). --79.214.35.251 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was quoting Blenheim Palace. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Coal Mining v "Destruction"
I've changed the wording of the heading for that section because it seems more than a little overblown. I've no doubt that the open-cast mining caused terrible damage to part of the estate, but since it only covered 99 acres out of the 15,000 acres quoted for the size of the estate elsewhere in the article I'd say it was quite a stretch to say the estate was "destroyed". Also, the article would be improved if it could clarify under what legal mechanism the mining was implemented: the way it reads now the government just sent excavators to dig up someone's private property and the owners were helpless to prevent it. Did the government/coal board have that kind of power in 1946? I feel there's a significant part of the story missing here.24.115.46.109 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * During the war and in the period that followed the British government wielded incredible power over people and property. Mr. Atlee's Labour Gov't inaugurated Britain's decades long experiment with socialism that continued through the 70's and yes, property rights largely went under the bus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The mining came to within 100 feet of the house, causing the structural problems. Many felt and still feel that this was entiirely deliberate. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Impact of opencast coal mining at Wentworth Woodhouse
Useful blog and evidence base here: https://www.historichouses.org/resources/all-resources/guest-blog-wentworth-woodhouse.html which contains the 1947 photo as shown in the article (from 'The Sphere'), for contemporary references on the impact of coal mining on the estate see the caption. The caption (not referenced in the article??) states: "THE PROGRESS OF OPEN-CAST COAL-MINING AT WENTWORTH WOODHOUSE A view showing how the excavation of the property has now reached the very doors of Earl Fitzwilliam’s historic mansion. In issues of “The Sphere” on April 20 and 27 last year details were given of the open cast coal mining activities at this celebrated Yorkshire estate near Rotherham.  At the time a bitter controversy was raging between Mr Shinwell Minister for Fuel and Power and Mr J A Hall, President of the Yorkshire Mineworkers’ Association, the former declaring that the coal from Wentworth must  be obtained at all costs and the latter urging that further mining of the property amounted to vandalism.  Mr Shinwell won his point, and during the past 10 months the open cast workings have been extended from the parkland at Wentworth, across the gardens and right up to Earl Fitzwilliam’s historic mansion.  Much needed coal for our industrial drive has been yielded by the Wentworth site and in due course will be levelled off and prepared again for cultivation. Agriculturalists declare, on the other hand, that real restoration is impossible as the soil has been disturbed to such depth. Wentworth Woodhouse is the largest private residence in England. Last year Lord Fitzwilliam offered it as a gift to the nation. . . " See also Hansard: HC Deb 16 April 1946 vol 421 cc2493-4 https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1946/apr/16/opencast-operations-wentworth-woodhouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Haywood Smith (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)