Talk:Witley Park

Edit concerning arrest and conviction of man "of Witley Park"

Discussion copied from User talk:SovalValtos

Re. your recent edit, are you sure that the man referenced did live at Witley Park (the house), rather than somewhere in the area of Witley Park? I've no idea myself but the owner of Witley Park may take exception to the imputation if you are incorrect. KJP1 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

KJP1 The article is about Witley Park the estate. My edit did not mention any particular house. There seem to be several Witley Park houses. At least " 'Witley Park House', a Modern movement home designed by Patrick Gwynne " and "a new house on the site of the old mansion was granted around 2004 and is now completed" are mentioned in the article. A number of other houses are shown on maps. I was going by the Surrey Police source which may or may not be considered reliable. It mentions 'Piers Ravenhill, 43, of Witley Park in Thursley' which was unambiguous as far as I could see, so not a question of me being correct, but rather the source. SovalValtos (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hum. The "estate" is the estate of (i.e. the land surrounding) Witley Park, the house. And the article is about the house and its estate - not any old housing estate in the Thurley area that may, or may not I've no idea, be an area called Witley Park. I would suggest that your addition clearly implies that the man arrested was resident at Witley Park house. If you are fine with it, so be it. Your edit, your call. KJP1 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Another thought. If there is an area of Thurley called Witley Park, the Surrey Police statement would be right. But they didn't reference a particular house and estate, that was done by your post. Looking at the police notice, I see the individual you've named used to live in a bungalow in Ash. That's quite some upward mobility, if you're right. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be two contiguous areas called Witley Park, one in Witley civil parish and the other in Thursley CP {https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/#map]. My post did not reference any particular house as you assert.SovalValtos (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Really! When you have added your edit to an article titled Witley Park, which then begins "Witley Park was a 19th-century house and is an estate in Surrey, between Godalming and Haslemere". If you're not referencing the house, your edit doesn't belong in the article. If you are referencing the house, you need to be certain your source is too. And I don't think it is. I really would recommend reverting your edit. KJP1 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps either way, but there are other properties on the area/estate called "Witley Park" - Lake Cottages, for example, and at least one farm, and not just the main house. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, the estate is large, was even larger, and has a large number of buildings on it. But the article is about the house, and its estate, that is the original Wright mansion, its replacement, and the very new house that, after a high-profile planning case, has been constructed in the last few years. My issue is that, reading SovalValtos's edit, in the context of the article in which he has placed it, could lead readers to assume that the individual convicted of drug supply was resident at the house which is the subject of the article. And that, I think, could be problematic, unless we are very sure of our facts. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem can be circumvented by simply dropping the phrase was a 19th-century house and from the lead, which needs expanding. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would we remove a useful and relevant fact, in order to retain a, probably irrelevant, and potentially misleading fact? The problem would be better resolved by reverting the edit that has caused the problem. KJP1 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason for my suggestion was that, because (as I understand it from the refs given) there never was a house called Witley Park, just an estate called Witley Park. If this is the case, the lead is wrong. (BTW I suggest this discussion is copied over to the article's talk page and continued there.) Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Witley Park" was the name of the house and of the estate that surrounded it. As can be seen here [1]. It isn't at all uncommon for "Park" to be the term for both the house and the estate, e.g. Grimston Park, Yorkshire, Broome Park, Kent, Gatcombe Park, Gloucestershire, Clytha Park, Monmouthshire, Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire and many others. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the reference to the boat house doesn't support the contention that the main house was called Witley Park as the boathouse is on the lake, some distance from the main house (see Google maps, "Witley Park", satellite view). But we can't debate this ad infinitum, so I'm going to leave it there. I do think this discussion should appear on Talk:Witley Park, though, as those interested in the architectural WikiProject may like to see it, so I am copying it there. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"HISTORY: This is one of a series of estate buildings built for the financier and speculator, James Whitaker Wright (1846-1904) at Lea Park, later renamed Witley Park. The old house was pulled down and a new one built for him circa 1890 by H Paxton Watson in the neo-Tudor style." (My bold italics). I'll also leave it there. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us give others a chance to comment for a while. SovalValtos (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Take as long as you need. But don't forget the issue is not the name of the house, but the wisdom, or otherwise, of your edit. KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's any help I am the owner of 'Witley Park' and did read the original druggie post as misleading at best. I asked Surrey Police to change the source webpage, and they have been a little bit helpful, if not entirely. Witley Park today is the 500 acres of walled Parkland, 5 x Gate Lodges and 5 x cottages, most of which are rented out (look at e.g. Savills). Then inside there are 4 main buildings perhaps known colloquially as 'Witley Park' but with their own names (e.g. 'Witley Park House'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witley Park Owner (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. I think that the amendment, which makes clear that the convicted man lived in a house on the estate, rather than at the main house itself, is an improvement and I hope you agree. My own view remains that it is pretty irrelevant to an article about the house and estate, but I'm probably not the right person to remove it. KJP1 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is good to have confirmation that there is now no such house as 'Witley Park' just several houses on the estate. The c2004 house built on the site of Wright's possibly being called 'Lea House'. I have removed the material about the 2015 convicted man as being off topic. SovalValtos (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)