Talk:Penshaw Monument

message: Perhaps add something about the fact The Toy Dolls filmed the video for "Dig That Groove Baby" there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.218.185 (talk • contribs) 
:This was previously included in the article but I have now removed it as I could not find it referenced in any reliable sources. Ajmint (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Toy Dolls

message: My late father informed me a few times that my great-great-great-grandfather, John Sheraton, born c1791, was responsible for and took part in the construction of the Penshaw Monument.  Sadly, I do not know if this information was gained through research or by word of mouth through the family.  If anyone has any evidence to substantiate this claim, I would be grateful to receive it.  (Sorry if I have posted in the wrong place.)
86.22.16.105 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction 

message: The current text runs: "The Monument is the best preserved model of a Doric Hexastyle temple in Britain." Not to diminish the significance of this monument, but this hyperbole would appear to be unverified and false on two counts, as: it appears to be a Tetrastyle monument (the portico has 4 columns, not 6); and St Stephens Chapel in the Greek section of West Norwood Cemetery is a perfectly preserved tetrastyle building which still functions. It dates from about 1872, and was restored in 1974 and is listed GII*. Ephebi (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not a hexastyle building. Someone should change it.LucretiusC (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims 

message: I think there’s a conflict between what we say about the plaque and what it says in its own text. It seems likely (to me!) that the original was put up at the time its foundations were laid then maybe the NT bit added on to mark the gift. It can’t all have been done in one go, surely? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Middleton, the original inscription has been erased and the National Trust has installed a new plaque to replace it—the article now states this in a footnote. The current plaque seems to have been put there in 1997, judging by Sunderland council's planning permission database. Ajmint (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaque 

message: I've just done a major expansion of this article and have been doing research on the monument; I have had to rely heavily on primary and historical sources for a lot of the article, since the history and architecture of the monument no longer receive detailed coverage in modern sources. Here are some difficult questions that I need help covering in the article.
# When exactly was the monument completed? Almost all sources simply state that it was built in 1844, but a Carlisle Journal article (paywall) from 12 October 1844 states the following:Is this grounds to say that the monument was actually built from 1844 to 1845, or should we follow all other sources and simply say 1844? Can anybody find a source which definitively gives the actual date of completion?
# Did "Earl Grey" suggest the temple design? Most sources say that the design of a Doric temple was done by John and Benjamin Green. The same Carlisle Journal article is the only source I have found which says that somebody else suggested such a design:Is it safe to assume that this Earl Grey is Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, Lord Durham's father-in-law, or could it be Thomas de Grey, 2nd Earl de Grey, the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects at the time the monument was built? Does "the architects" refer to the Greens, or to the other architects who proposed columns earlier in the process (see the article)? Also, should the article mention this claim about Earl Grey at all, given that it is only found in one source and attenuated with the phrase "we believe"?
# Are all the columns hollow? Modern sources mostly do not discuss this, but this 2015 Sunderland council document states thatHowever, nineteenth-century sources (Fordyce, The Athenaeum, The Art Union, and more) agree that all of the columns are hollow as a cost-saving measure; some of them criticise the monument for this. Is it safe to assume that the council document is mistaken on this point? If so, should it be trusted as a source on other matters? And should the article discuss the disparity between sources in the main body, or else as a footnote?
# Was it meant to have a roof? The same council document states:However, the claim that the monument was intended to have a roof is dismissed as a myth in this Chronicle article. Several architectural journals mentioned in the Reception section discuss the lack of a roof as an aspect of the monument's design; they were written in 1844, probably before the structure was complete (see point 1). To me this suggests that the lack of a roof was planned before the construction began (although this would not necessarily preclude its being due to a lack of funds). In the journal The Athenaeum in 1844, a critical piece on the monument says:I interpreted this as a tongue-in-cheek jibe forming part of a criticism of the monument's lack of a roof rather than a serious remark, but I may be wrong. Again, to what extent should the article discuss the controversy about this question in the sources?
Ajmint (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Some editorial questions