Talk:Thomas Rawlins (sculptor)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weston Hall in 1768 - name & date query

We have a source specifying that this house might be "Weston Longville House for John Custance, in 1781" [1] - so, slightly different name, different date. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a name. I've now seen it as Weston House, Weston Hall, Weston Longville House, Weston Longville Hall ... however there's very firm evidence in terms of Parson Woodforde's diary, that it was completed, at least to the point where it could first be occupied, in 1781. There's a picture of it on p.58 of Creating Paradise: The Building of the English Country House, 1660-1880 - a frump of a building ;( -Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crouse issue

You cannot just delete the Crouse reference as if it did not exist. Either it refers to Blackfriers, or it is anothe building. Pitting your speculation against a contemporaneous source is only ever going to have one outcome, Norwikian. For my part, I have supplied a reference identifying Blackfriers as the site of the library 20 years before the dte of the building. And an RS reference stating that he completed a building in the gothic style in 1774. The best I can offer is that we add "was described as being in the gothic style in a contemporaneous account". Or else we seperate out the assertion and conjour up a third documented building, distinct from Blackfriers. What we do not do is sweep an excellent ref under the carpet because it does not fit our preconceived views. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfriars

Sorry. but in my near 60 years residence and interest in Norwich i have never once heard of Blackfriars (n.b. spelling), described as a library, unless perhaps the Monastery's pre 1520. when purchased by the City. Just because a book says so does not always make it correct either ! Cannot see how my home-City's civic Hall was ever a library, that's all. Dangerous to believe all we read in books if not paying attention to the testimony of those who have actually been there, enquired and found no evidence,that's all. Thanks for your help.Norwikian (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of evidence, as they say, is not evidence of absence, Norwikian. It seems evident to me that you cannot have made any serious enquiries into the question of whether or not Blackfriars was ever used as a library. Let's take, for example:

Godly Reformers and Their Opponents in Early Modern England: Religion in ... By Matthew Reynolds, page 67
Norwich Blackfriars - last bullet point
Norwich Heritage Economic and Regeneration Trust - "Collins ran what is said to have been Norwich's first lending library, housed over the porch of the Blackfriar's Hall."
Norwich Heritage Explorer (Norfolk CC). - "and in 1608 a library was made over the porch."

It seems utterly indisputable that multiple reliable sources contend that Blackfriars was the site of Norwich's first lending library. In view of this, your "in my near 60 years residence and interest in Norwich i have never once heard of Blackfriars (n.b. spelling), described as a library" is not very compelling. Clearly the above references are just the scrapings from the web. There is a definitive history of Norwich Library, as I think I pointed out earlier. There's probably a copy of that book in your local library. Perhaps you could use your 61st year in the area to read some of it?

Next, on the basis of this great certainty of yours that Blackfriars was never the site of a library, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary, you say "Dangerous to believe all we read in books if not paying attention to the testimony of those who have actually been there, enquired and found no evidence". If I understand you correctly, you're saying that this article should be based on the considered whim of someone prepared to reject any amount of evidence that does not fit his prejudices. That the word of someone who has not done basic homework should be taken, in a matter relating to the C18, above a person who was there at the time and wrote about it. That's nonsense on stilts.

Next: we have the 1781 Crouse assertion that Rawlins was responsible for a library building in 1774. And other sources stating that his 1774 construction was a new entrance at Blackfriars. And multiple sources saying that Blackfriars - and particularly the entrance - was the site of a library. You reject entirely any thought that these might neatly fit togther. Really?

Clearly, there is more information we need; not least, to know for how long the Library was located at Blackfriars. As you have decided that it was never at Blackfriars, you're probably not the best person for that bit of research.

Then we have your edit summary "Unlikely that an advocate of Neo-classicism would revert to gothic style." decision that because you think Rawlins style spans late Baroque Rococo to Neoclassical he cannot have put together a Gothic style building. But Blackfriars is, as far as I can see, a Gothic building. It would not be a great and overwhelming surprise that the design of an addition to a Gothic building was derived from the same style. It's the same pattern: your preconceptions colliding with evidence from a reliable source, and your predisposition to disregard the source in favour of your preconception.

All in all, sadly, you give the impression that you have a particular view, and no amount of evidence of any sort is going to shift you from that view. If you'd like to wind back from what seems like a wholly untenable position, that'd be great. If, instead, you insist on taking a No true Scotsman approach, then we're probably not going to make any progress. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Library

O dear, where to begin with your indignant response ? Probably best to note the hour it was posted and forgive. Yes, Norwich Library was apparently very briefly housed somewhere in St. Andrew's Hall. One of four locations over the centuries, Guildhall being its main location for centuries and contributing to the City's long-established high literacy rate. However, a subscription Library existed somewhere in Norwich in the 17th century apparently, as it is recorded that Sir Thomas Browne donated books to it

http://www.heritagecity.org/research-centre/cultural-superlatives/the-norfolk-and-norwich-subscription-library.htm

For myself, my interest in Thomas Rawlins comes from what actually survives of his as a stonemason, rather than any architecture long since demolished. What is your interest in him ? Why not start a page on something yet to be included in wikipedia, then i can chip in, correct, dispute and amend it with you. Alternatively you could step back from being so easily offended at 3:30 in the morning ! Cheers Norwikian (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could begin by addressing any of the substantive points made. To the extent that I'm offended, it's limited to people who act on their beliefs & presuppositions rather than the evidence at hand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]