Talk:Fairbanks House (Dedham, Massachusetts)

message: Monticello - 1300 words. Mount Vernon - 1800 words. Fairbanks house - 4000 words? With all due respect to whoever put in the time, this thing needs a serious haircut. 
Starting with the easy ones: 
Dendochronology report: gone.
Family History changed to History, much paring down
The subject of this page is the house, not the family history. The article is now a reasonable 900 words - more than it deserves relative to some other notable houses.... but reasonable, at least. My family has lived in Dedham for over 35 years, and I've probably seen 300 visitors to the house in that time. The page was flagged as overlong for a good reason. I've corrected the problem. The geneology is already on the Jonathan Fairbanks page, so it's not necessary to repeat here. MarkinBoston 16:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waaaay too long! 

message: Part of the history section seems to be identical to material at http://www.familyorigins.com/users/k/e/e/Louis-J-Keester/FAMO1-0001/d157.htm but I can't tell which is copied from which.  I did make wording changes including expanding the abbrev. Mass.  RJFJR (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: if the oak lintel is dated to 1637 than I don't see how 1641 is irrefutable. Someone should change it so that it says built from 1637 to 1641, since at least some of the house had to have been built or in the process of being built in the 1630s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.139.117 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 1641 as the irrefutable

message: From the pictures it looks like the house is a museum. When did the family move out (presumably to a new building nearby)? Abductive (reasoning) 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was 1903.  If not then, within a year or two. --Briancua (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did occupation cease? 

message: This article has long been stable and states that it was completed in 1641, which is what reliable sources tell us.  came in the yesterday and changed it to say that the house was completed in 1654. His edit summary said that since the roof boards were dated to that year then that must be when it was completed. I reverted, saying it was much more likely that a new roof was added later than that the house sat for 15 years with walls but no roof. Instead of coming to talk, Tom edit warred back to his preferred version. The sources support my interpration, as is seen from the MACRIS database source: "[T]he construction date of the building has now been identified as 1641.. ... Four of [the roof] timbers were dated successfully, one to the winter of 1652/3, and the remaining three to the winter of 1654/5. The fact that they are fourteen years later in date than the timbers in the main body of the house suggests that they represent an early alteration to the roofing." The Oxford dendrochronology source uses almost identical wording. I am going to revert one more time. If Tom is still not satisfied, I would encourage him to come here to try and change the consensus for this language. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with your assessment here. Later roof sheathing does not mean "no roof." It's not a logical conclusion. The most logical conclusion was that it was replaced during the above mentioned alterations. Following the reasoning here, I am reverting changes on "Oldest houses in Massachusetts" and "Oldest houses in the US" articles. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I refer you to the construction section, that states: "The house was not built as it stands at one time, or in one year, although it is certain that Jonathan owned a house situated on the same lot by 1648. Subsequently, perhaps as late as 1654, a large addition, called the new house, was made to the original building, and was purportedly built for the occupation of his son John after his marriage. The current roof was put on during this period and has been dated to 1652–1654 using dendrochronology." It would be more reasonable for me to believe that in 1652, they built an entirely "new house" and reused timbers from the earlier dwelling. A roof board would not need to be replaced after only 12-15 years of use. Are you stating that a record mentions a "new house" in 1654, actually meant that just an addition or modifications were made? In my opinion, in 1652, they started to build an entirely new house and reused timbers from the earlier house. Reusing timbers from an old house was very common. After the new house was finished in 1654, whatever house that existed prior to that is gone. The new house dates to 1654 when it was completed. The reason why they used the term "new house" in 1654 should not be complicated. Either it meant they built a new house at that time or it means they completely renovated and expanded the house to make it like new eliminating the previous dwelling altogether. On a side note, if you've every built your own house, it sometimes takes decades to complete, if ever, due to time and money.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I do believe that mention of a "new house" means " a large addition," as the source you cited states. What you or I believe, however, is irrelevant. We follow what reliable sources say, and they say that the central portion of house was complete in 1641 and that additions were appended on later. If you can find a source that says they knocked down an original building and rebuilt the current building using the old wood then I would be very glad to read it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I advised the ladies at the Fairbanks House, after a visit many years ago, to replace the existing clapboards and where they could buy the new ones. They took my advice. So, did the people who run the Old House (Cutchogue) regarding clapboards. I do believe I have an opinion.
Tomticker5 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , I didn't pull anything out of my hat. I used what reliable sources say. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Fairbanks House own official website uses 1637 as the construction date. Why is that date not used on the page?  Tomticker5 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your expertise, the dendro report says 1641; not for the whole house, just for the oldest section.  Tomticker you are defending the Feake House article citation of a dendro report which has not been made public, and interpreting the Fairbanks dendro report, the summary of which is publicly available; looks like you are trying to elevate Connecticut over Massachusetts?  Compare the Fairbanks to the Feake; Feake has no known 17th century features, and the group that renovated the house won't release the dendro report.Old houses (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  If the official website for the owners of this house claim it was built in 1637 and there's dendrochronology to support that date is quite possible, then why not use the 1637 date? I have no problem ignoring the fact that the house was renovated in 1652-1654, so completely that they had to refer to it afterward as the "new house" in the records. What I'm looking for is a little consistency in how the dates for these very old houses are represented here on Wikipedia. For some houses you ignore the owners or the dates on their official websites, and for others you use those dates.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Dendrochronology determined 1641, with some timbers dating to 1637.  This article concerns the year of construction, not when individual building components were cut.  For that reason, the Feake House in Connecticut cannot be said to date from 1645.Old houses (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , As I said above, if you can provide a reliable source that states this is what happened with the Fairbanks House, I would be glad to read it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of completion