Talk:Shifnal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
We’ve had 3 attempts to change the Charles Dickens’s reference now in the “Famous People” part of this page in an attempt to be malicious. I am beginning to assume that this is the work of a sock puppeteer, possibly someone associated with the spurious comments and photograph on the The Old Curiosity Shop page. I am no longer prepared to work to accommodate this person’s perverse point of view that includes removing links; it is just too onerous and propose that whenever this person vandalises the page we replace his entry with the following text until such times as the Shifnal Historical Society provide a more definitive statement..
Charles Dickens, whose grandmother was employed at nearby Tong Castle, visited the town on several occasions and many believe that the buildings in his book The Old Curiosity Shop were based on those in the town. The Shifnal Historical Society report that he was very taken with the architecture of the town, and for that reason, he based The Old Curiosity Shop on The Unicorn Public House now known as Naughty Nells.
In respone to above
Wikipedia is aimed at being a creditable encyclopedia that could be used as a serious reference. Using sources such as the Shropshire tourism website or Shifnal Historical Society are not acceptable for such a website. Please find the sources that those groups quote and if they are applicable for a serious encyclopedia include them or admit that the Charles Dickens story is a rumour and treat it as that.
You may have a point but this is not the way to go about the issue. The normal approach is to call for citations. I wonder why you are so defensive about this. We did seem to be working toward the sort of compromise you outline. Do you have some vested interest in disproving the statement?
Shropman 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Response
I do have a vested interest as I wish to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and the way the paragraph is written at the moment gives a totaly biased account of it. It is an area I have looked into and have so far found there to be no historical credible evidence to prove it. If there is some I would be happy for it to be contained within the page. However at the moment it is nothing more than 'hearsay' and therefore in my opinion should not be included in what is ultimately an encyclopedia. The chnages I made previously I believe gave a much more accurate representation of the issue however they were constantly changed back to a way that gave a totally inaccurate view of the topic. Would you really expect to see it written in the Brittanica encylopedia how you have been wording it?
Well, yes I think I would, is there something wrong with saying "many believe that the buildings in his book ..." I don't think that to be inaccurate. I'm sure that readers would recognise an element of romanticism in the statement and not assume that it was a cast iron case. Would you say that "(NO HISTORICAL EVIDNECE TO PROVE THIS)" is more likely to be found in Britannica? Then you follow it with "(ALL OF THE ABOVE IS HIGHLY DISPUTED AND YET TO BE CONFIRMED BY A CREDITABLE SOURCE)". I think that's more than a bit of "overkill". Perhaps you see why I think you had an ulterior motive. It may never be absolutely provable today that Dickens visited Shifnal but I promise you that it's such a widely held belief from Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton that I think it's still very much worth a mention and I see nothing wrong in the "many believe" approach. Owing to the numerous references to the Dickens link in so many places visitors to Shifnal would I think expect to see some reference in the Wikipedia entry and I think they would consider it lacking if it did not. I wonder if you would accept adding a last sentence to the paragraph such as "Unfortunately there is no historical evidence to prove this." is likely to make it clear the situation to all readers of the article?
Shropman 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe you should use the word 'many', as it is not the type of vocabularly for an encyclopedia. As for you questioning whether (NO HISTORICAL EVIDNECE TO PROVE THIS) would be found in Britannica, I simply ask have you ever looked at an edition? Of course they would include this as it makes it clear that the statement is not proven. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should not be for 'romanticism' they are for hard facts, 'romanticism' is found in works of fiction. As for it being a 'widely held belief' I assure you that this is wide of the mark and that most people do not know about this rumour. As I believe that wikipedia is for hard facts I do not believe that it should be mentioned until such time that it is proven by a verifable and creditable source. I find your compromise strange as this is what the paragraph has been changed to on a number of occassions yet you constantly changed it back taking no account of what other people have to say on the matter. Then you accuse me of vandalising the site. As a retired academic of over 40 years I find this deeply insulting. Among academics there is a widely held belief of mistrust in Wikipedia due to people like your self blindly refusing to accept when things might be wrong. I applaud you for the majority of the Shifnal page but feel that you should accept that this one paragraph adds no quality at all to either the page or the entire Wikipedia website.
I added a link to the Victorian History of Tong that names sources for the purported facts
“There is another connection. Charles Dickens was born in Portsmouth, in 1812. His grandmother was Elizabeth Ball. She was the daughter of James and Amy Ball, of Claverley in Shropshire. She was baptised there, on January 10, 1746. Before she married, she was housekeeper at Tong Castle. She married William Dickens in 1781 when she was 36, so she may have been at Tong for some time.”
along with critical reports of those who exploited the connection for unscrupulous ends!MrsKrishan 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A creditable citation is needed for the Charles Dickens claim. I see this matter has been discussed above but nothing has come of it. Does anyone know of a proper citation that could be used? The Thomas Beddoes line also needs referencing.
