Talk:24 Sussex Drive

Edit War? Gorffwysfa?

I've removed the portion of the article wherein it states that 24 Sussex is "also known as Gorffwysfa", as I simply don't believe that, in modern Canada, it is - while the article (and associated source) rightly note in the History section that the original builder named the house Gorffwysfa, it certainly isn't referred to by that name by anyone in Canadian society today. Indeed, a Google search for "Gorffwysfa" turns up extremely few results that have anything to do with 24 Sussex at all; and those few results that do discuss the house mostly note the name "Gorffwysfa" only as a historical curiosity, and not as a contemporary way to refer to it.

In other words, while the article should indeed note the name in the History section, to give background on the house, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that 24 Sussex is "also known as" Gorffwysfa when, from all accounts, nobody has used that name for it in common parlance in a century. Andrew M (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It has not been called Gorffwysfa since it has been the PM's residence. And here is something useful too: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/24-sussex-the-place-where-no-one-knows-its-name-and-fewer-still-can-pronounce-it

... built Gorffwysfa in 1868. After the Currier family sold the house in 1902, and it was expropriated by the Canadian government in the 1950s, it sat abandoned for years until it was fixed up as a state residence. “It was gutted, entirely,” she said. “And thus, it really wasn’t Gorffwysfa anymore, it was just 24 Sussex Drive.” Peter K Burian 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it was still in the lede when I read it this evening, so I have edited it to eliminate the ridiculous suggestion that 24 Sussex has ever been called Gorffwysfa since Prime Ministers have lived there. Peter K Burian 03:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Another editor insists reverting it to indicate that the building is called Gorffwysfa. It is not. It has not been called that since the 1950s. No Government of Canada document calls it that. 99% of people living in Ottawa have never even heard of that name. If my revision keeps getting reverted, I will file for Wikipedia:Disupute Resolution.

I have not had my edits reverted nearly as often on a dozen other articles as on the one about 24 Sussex. I let it go when I was less experienced but now, I am more confident and will not accept my edits being reverted with no Edit summary or any well-reasoned explanation. I accepted that the name of the Prime Minister should not be in the lede. But I cannot accept an indication in an article about a building called something when that is not the case. Why mislead the public? Peter K Burian 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Government of Canada Publication:

In 1868, ... he built a house near the forests and water that had made his fortune. He called the house Gorffwysfa, ... After that mention of a historical name, the publication never once mentions that Welsh name.Peter K Burian 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Trudeau will not live here

OK, it is briefly mentioned much later, but in my estimation, as a Canadian, the fact that the current Prime Minister does not live there (and that it is vacant) is an essential item that should be discussed in the lede. Peter K Burian 02:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that Brian Baeumler's opinions aren't of utmost importance to this article. See WP:WEIGHT.

Also, the lede's length should be proportionate to the length of the article; the lede shouldn't be over-inflated with detail, such as who the current prime minister is. That information can be found by readers by clicking through the extant links to Prime Minister of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The list of problems is not an opinion. The amount he quotes to repair the problems is an opinion and yet, you seem to have no problem with that sentence. Peter K Burian 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you did not read WP:BRD. Indeed, you clearly ignored the prompt to do so, reverted, and have made no comment on the "need" for the prime minister to be named in the lede (contrary to the practice used in many other articles about official residences).

Baeumler does not work for the NCC. He does not have access to 24 Sussex. Note, his remarks are reported as hypothetical: "Bryan Baeumler, host of HGTV shows including Disaster DIY and House of Bryan, estimates the 150-year-old house could [emphasis mine] need as much as $15 million..." In the video in the source, he is not in 24 Sussex, but a house "similar to any older home, i.e. our prime minister's future residence..." Even if you had an official source, that kind of detail is trivial. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the article on 10 Downing Street does mention who lives there now. Cameron. To accommodate their large families, both Tony Blair and David Cameron chose to live in the private residence above Number 11 rather than the smaller one above Number 10. In 2010, the Camerons completely modernised the 50-year-old private kitchen in Number 11.Peter K Burian 03:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What part of "in the lede" confused you? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine let's not mention who does not live there, in the lede. Instead, I will add a quote from Trudeau in a later section as to why he does not live there. This is significant because Justin Trudeau did live there in the past when his father Pierre Trudeau was PM. Peter K Burian 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is significant to the Justin Trudeau article, not this one. Unless you wish to mention every single one of its occupants? In which case, I would suggest you create a list under a new section within the article, similar to what was done for Stornoway. trackratte (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NOT under renovations at all

I modified the lede to indicate that it is not under renovation, but that a plan needs to be developed before that can ever happen.

As of Sept. 2105, the NCC does not even have 24 Sussex on their priority list of work to be done to official residences. So, "they are working on a plan". I suppose they are waiting on the government to tell them it would be OK to spend $18 million. Or not. (This is a beauracratic nightmare as the following excerpt indicates.) http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ncc-seeks-advice-on-conserving-and-developing-official-residences:

"Aside from shoring up the escarpment behind 24 Sussex in 2013, there have been no major repairs in years to the crumbling property... In 2011, the NCC said 24 Sussex needed $10 million in repairs deemed urgent four years earlier. ... committee members made more than two dozen comments and suggestions. Among them:

• 24 Sussex should have a 10-year plan for restoration and the plan should be referred to a parliamentary committee “where all parties are implicated.”

The perception that the rehabilitation of 24 Sussex is a political problem “should be corrected to an understanding that the real issues are of an architectural and heritage nature.”

• While 24 Sussex is being renovated, the prime minister and his family could stay in “appropriate temporary facilities” such as the NCC-owned Wright-Scott House in Gatineau or the French embassy just next door. (However, Stéphane Schorderet, press counsellor at the French embassy, said that idea is “just not possible” for space and security reasons as well as the fact the embassy is technically on French territory.)
• To show that 24 Sussex is not overly extravagant, it should be compared to the residences of other G7 leaders.
• Previous occupants should be invited to share their stories of 24 Sussex and describe their issues during their time in residence.
• The NCC should consider opening 24 Sussex to the public “to allow them to see first-hand what the issues are.”
• Consideration should be given to undertaking the rehabilitation of 24 Sussex through an architectural competition, to create a “prestigious project for Canadian architects.”
• The NCC should investigate opportunities to add 24 Sussex to other large government capital projects, such as the House of Commons restoration.
• The NCC should consider holding a public consultation on an official plan for 24 Sussex, be ready to execute it and be transparent about it.
• The project message should be more about making 24 Sussex comfortable and safe than architecturally better." Wow, nobody will wade through this much beauracracy! (How Not To Get Anything Done). Peter K Burian 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the renovations versus planning stages bit. trackratte (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How important are the facts about the terrible condition of 24 Sussex?

Is "the escarpment was shored up in 2013" really the kind of fact that's beneficial to an encyclopaedia article; are readers really searching for that kind of information? It's trivial. Indeed, the information about the renovation is starting to dominate this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

hmm ... What would interest anyone to read this article? Recently? The fact that the prime minister refused to move into it because it's falling apart. No wonder that topic is dominating it; an old historic building that has been falling apart for years. Several prime ministers or their wives (going way back to Margaret Trudeau) have complained about the very poor state of the building. ........................ If an article includes info as to what type of repairs are necessary (and someone keeps condensing that when I add specifics), it should include info as to what type of work has actually been done. Let's not lead readers to believe that there has been a lot of work done... there has not. They are barely using a Band-Aid solution. No wonder there are a hundred news articles about this topic. Peter K Burian 23:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That missed the point entirely. Are you going to list each time a light bulb was changed? The more trivial work you include the more it will appear as though a lot of work has been done. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What about taking about half of the architectural piece, and putting into a new section such as "Major Renovations" or changes, or something along those lines? At this point that section shouldn't be any longer than the architecture section. I don't presently see any real need to say too much more beyond "major renovations are required" and "currently in planning stages", etc. Once the actual plan is released, it can be outlined in a bit more detail according to the reliable source outlining the plan.

I'm generally not a fan of using too many newsmedia sources as they are non-expert and have specific 'angles' to get across. Whereas official, academic, or expert sources generally carry more weight and a more neutral tone. trackratte (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume by "architectural piece" you mean the architecture section. But, that is where the renovation (past and present) information is contained. Putting it into its own section doesn't reduce or cap the amount of information pertaining to renovations past and future; it might just encourage more, ensuring the subject will dominate the article. That said, I don't think there's enough for a separate article. Nor do I believe there should be one: to fill it would require including details like the repair of a window sash, replacement of a toilet, and addition of a porch light fixture. Trivia.

Just focus on the major things here and keep the wording brief. I believe that's what's done at Rideau Hall. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, think about it like this Baeumler listed a litany of problems with the house, including the presence of toxic asbestos, lack of central heating or cooling and the knob-and-tube electrical wiring, a system that’s been obsolete since around 1945. Even those are relatively minor problems, compared to issues like replacing the roof, plumbing and foundations, http://globalnews.ca/news/2304601/crumbling-24-sussex-an-embarrassment-says-diy-expert/

IMHO, readers need to know the above, but it keeps getting deleted every time I add it. Include it, and then, the fact that nothing has been done except shoring up to escarpment would not seem trivial. Does no one else agree that this topic is of interest to people who go to the trouble to find and read this article? Peter K Burian 23:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoting media folks: I agree in principle re: "media" experts! But the NCC has done an excellent job of covering up how severe the problems are. I have searched high and low to find the scope of the work estimate they had written. It might be something available only under the Freedom of Information Act. Since I don't have time to go through that, the best info I was able to find was the list that Baeumler provided when he was interviewed. Is that suitable here? I thought so. Peter K Burian 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Peter, I agree that the fact that the residence is in such disrepair is notable. I think the issue is, for an article of this length, how much space do we devote to it, keeping in mind that just because it is a "hot topic" at the moment, does not give it more weight. For example, if we covered all the "featured stories" in the media in any great depth for every topic, we would find ourselves with huge swathes of information over the years which would be largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm thinking that a new section outlining all of the major changes made to the residence over the years may be notable and inline with appropriate weight. A few lines on the current topic could be used: 'Due to problems X, Y, and Z (amongst others) and years of deferred maintenance,[source] the residence has been deemed unsuitable for habitation.[source] Currently, the NCC is conducting an analysis of potential options, and is set to begin planning for the necessary renovations.[source]', or something along those lines. Keeping in mind that if someone really wants more in depth information at this point, they can always click on the source link, or simply conduct a google search. trackratte (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

All that is already covered in the article.

• "After it was decided in 1950 the house would become the official residence of the prime minister, the turret, widow's walk, trim, main gable at the front, verandahs, and porte-cochère were removed and an extension added to the east. The interior was gutted, save for part of the dining room,"

and

• "Since the renovation of the house in 1950,[12] very little has been spent on upkeep of 24 Sussex Drive, leaving parts of it worn and outdated, including the heating and cooling systems, wiring, and roofing."

Do we need more than that? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I already dealt with Baeumler's opinions. He shouldn't get more coverage than he already has in the article according to WP:WEIGHT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A new section re: Renovations? SURE! btw, it could be a couple of years before the NCC wades through the bureaucracy (see the list I posted earlier re: the committee's recommendations.) So in the meantime, we would need to include the best information that is actually available. Quotes from previous residents and the media expert. Peter K Burian 23:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NO new section re: Condition and Renovations

Well that would remove this topic (falling apart, what the committee recommended, what media guy and previous residents have said) from the pure Architecture portion of the article. Anyone not interested in the fact that the PM refused to move in because the building is a wreck, need not read that topic. He could then enjoy the historic aspects of the architecture.

Since I am not feeling much objection to doing so, I will start the new section tomorrow, move current content into it, and add to it. (I'm sure we will then get disagreement about some of the content I added, but such is life.)

btw, why did I ever bother looking for 24 Sussex on Wikipedia? Only because I had read in the news that the PM refused to move in because it was falling apart. And I thought Wikipedia would have a nice summary as to why he could not move in; (because the newspaper did not provide any specifics) ... I was wrong; Wikipedia did not. (Only later was the media star interviewed and that made the newspapers.) Peter K Burian 00:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I don't think there is any objection to the fact that it is notable, I certainly think it is. So, thanks for taking the project on. And yes there will always be discussions on what the best balance is from an editorial point of view, and how to present facts in a neutral way based on high quality sources. Such is life as you say, but Wikipedia is made better for it. trackratte (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of the renovations isn't the issue. It's WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. Information on why Trudeau isn't in the house and the building being "a wreck" is already covered in the article. Any more and it will be too much. A full quarter of the article is dedicated to renovations past and future as it is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine, I will leave it as is.Peter K Burian 18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 24 Sussex Drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609152332/http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=136 to http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=136
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609152240/http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=134 to http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)