Jump to content

Talk:Chequers

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 175.103.25.136 (talk) at 12:13, 13 April 2017 (→Discussion as to whether the movie Ali G Indahouse warrants inclusion in this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lady Mary

One question:

For two years the unfortunate Lady Mary languished at Chequers, although probably, not in too much discomfort. The cell where she slept from 1556 to 1567 is still kept as it was...

The dates in this passage don't seem to match -- how long was she there? Catherine | talk 00:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Initially it said 1667 which would be 111 years! I don't know, ask Ragussa, whose addition it was. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

The photo currently illustrating the article Image:Chequers.jpg was apparently yoinked from a BBC webpage, and has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If someone can find a replacement image it would be appreciated-- preferably public domain or GFDL. -- Infrogmation 12:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Family propaganda?

Who on Earth inserted the following?

Arthur and Ruth Lee, by this time Lord and Lady Lee of Farnham, left Chequers on 8th January 1921. They departed with bitter hearts after a dinner at the house, Lady Lee in tears, as a political disagreement with Lloyd George just before the hand-over had rather soured relations between them and the first recipient.

The Lees had truly loved Chequers, and their munificence has doubtless been appreciated by many Prime Ministers and their families ever since.

The tone is grossly innappropriate due to its over-familiar and rather fawning style. It almost sounds like it was written by a family member as an act of vanity. I'm editing most of this out and replacing it with hard facts. Polocrunch 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you will find it was Norma Major in her book of Chequers. I wonder who on earth wrote: "I don't like research very much, but sometimes on rainy days I might do a little.", sounds like you need a monsoon. Giano | talk 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Souring" of the hand-over

Towards the end of the article appears the line:

"A recent political disagreement between the Lees and Prime Minister Lloyd George soured the hand-over."

Considering Lloyd George ceased to be Prime minster in 1922 and indeed died in 1945, I think referring to this uncited event as "A recent political disagreement" is a bit odd. Also, no details are given about this "souring" of the hand-over and as mentioned, no citation is provided. I think either further details need to be provided or the line should be removed. Canderra 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

I would suggest that the name could also have originated from the presence of Chequers Trees in the grounds / surroundings, which historically were much more common than now. A simpler explanation than the one given in the article. The tree also gave the name 'Chequers' to many country pubs - see [1] [2] 80.42.80.76 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The origin given is the one given in the official history of the Manor by Norma Major. -- Roleplayer 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Front view photo

Are we in the clear using this under fair use? After all, we do have a free photo, and I would have thought that makes our position weaker than if there were no free images of Chequers available. I'm not altogether sure that the fact that the front-view photo simply displays an aspect of the house we can't otherwise obtain is good enough. Loganberry (Talk) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

The template used here is Infobox:military installation. That seems a rather odd template to use, although I appreciate it is staffed by military personnel. It seems particularly weird to describe the PM and their spouse as the "Garrison". Would there be any objection to my converting it to "historic site" or "historic house"? KJP1 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had spotted this I would have removed it myself. This is yet another example of ridiculous info-boxes taking over the project and misinforming. It is not a military installation and it is not owned by the Nation and administerd by a Trust, not HM Government which is quite a different. I have removed the offending disonfo-box and restated the orginal lead image. All relevant information is in the text of the lead.Giano (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we, and others, will have differing views on whether or not it should have an infobox at all - but given the pointless arguments, and consequential losses, the project has endured over this issue, I'll wait to see what others think. Certainly, the military installation box it had was inappropriate. That said, I'm delighted to encounter you again and hope that you are well. The Chequers article is certainly weak, considering the building's historic importance, if not its architectural merit. I may see what can be added. KJP1 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you again too. Oh I fully expect it will have to have an info-box, some people seem to love them. I worked on it years and years ago under a different user name. I don't currently have the enthusiasm to work on it again, but I do have the coffee table book by Norma Major, is anyone wants any references checking. Giano (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind. Fortunately, I have the Major book, and also Alan Clark's editing of Arthur Lee's papers which has quite a bit on the house. Pevsner has less than one might imagine. It could be worked up although, as you say, enthusiasm is key! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chequers. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion as to whether the movie Ali G Indahouse warrants inclusion in this article

Other landmarks have a section " In popular culture ". This one doesn't, obviously because of the lack of films representing this place. That is understandable, but I've tried to add some content regarding a movie which was set at Chequers and I see no reason for this content to be deleted.

Now, some user (KJP1) has made threats. Wikipedia takes threats seriously, so please watch your step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.136 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has repeatedly sought to mention the movie Ali G Indahouse in the See Also section. He initially did so without references believing that the movie was filmed at Chequers. When it was pointed out that the movie was not filmed at Chequers, he inserted two references, neither of which supported his claim. When this was pointed out, he again inserted a mention of the movie, on the basis that it purports to be set at Chequers. Every attempt to remove the mention is reverted. His logic would see the movie Downing Street Down included in the entry on 10 Downing Street. If the movie had been filmed at Chequers, you might just argue for a mention in a "Popular Culture" section, although, as three random examples, neither 10 Downing Street, nor the White House, nor the Élysée Palace have such sections. But as the movie wasn't filmed at Chequers, it really is irrelevant to an article on Chequers.
I also note that the editor has a history of Edit warring and has been banned for this in the fairly recent past. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is too much of a stretch for relevancy. This article doesn't have a 'popular culture' section because nothing has been filmed here and the film set here does not revolve around the building. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh okay. But nothing is stopping you from adding that entry to 10 Downing Street. Please feel free to do so, I do not have any objections. In the meantime, the Mentmore Towers article has a mention of Ali G. And the Eiffel Tower article does have a mention of the Eiffel tower being destroyed. Ditto for many other landmarks/buildings out there ( Empire State Building, Christ Church in Oxford, Heygate Estate, Burj Khalifa, Marina Bay Sands to name a few ). Therefore, the content is relevant and it stays. 175.103.25.136 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.136 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really seem to have a problem with the concept of consensus, as your Talkpage history shows. There are currently 3 editors saying it is not relevant, and one (you) saying it is. The conclusion you draw from this is: "the content is relevant and it stays." That's not a consensus. You need to convince others and you've not done that. Also, you really need to improve your accuracy on here - the Eiffel Tower page does not have a mention of its being destroyed. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, um, no, there are probably others who think it is relevant, but have not commented. As for the Eiffel tower, if you go to the page, there is a section which talks about it and directs the reader to another page.. It is here for you to read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#In_popular_culture. See? Perhaps you need to get your facts right. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.136 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, correctly, the Eiffel Tower page doesn't mention it. You've linked to the Eiffel Tower in popular culture page. If you stopped to think occasionally, you might get a few more things right. As to your supporters who haven't commented, I think we'll wait until they do. KJP1 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the jist of what I am saying, is still right. The Eiffel Tower in popular culture page was probably too big and thats why an editor(s) decided to create a new page, possibly? And you conveniently ignored the other articles I listed. Maybe if you followed your advice too ( you know, stopping to think ) that would be awesome.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chequers&oldid=775212085"