Talk:St John's Jerusalem

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Better photo please

Can anyone please supply a better photo, i.e. of the facade, if possible? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC))

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Crusader Nights film

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

"The building was controversially used in 1994 as one of the sets for G. Brownhouse's adult film Crusader Nights, which was the first such film to integrate archive footage from The Crusades.[15]" - I don't know what the writer was getting at with this statement, but I am quite certain that no video footage was taken during the Crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.120.187 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Muslims against Crusades

I have removed the meaningless pipe links to special air service and kangaroo courts - that is just comical Otherwise the citations provided do not link to articles and searches of the newspaper web sites result do not find anything - if you have something then show it

Without proper evidence this section will need to be deleted --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Contested allegation of Hoax

At least parts of this article are a blatant hoax. It's very difficult to tease out what is true and what is not - I'm tempted to revert the whole article to a much earlier version, but that would lose the efforts of some editors here who I'm sure are acting in good faith. Obvious signs of the hoax are the bizarre links, the many unverifiable and obscure offline "sources", and the many - supposedly unrelated - references to the names Brown and Giles. I suspect other articles are also involved in the hoax. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

• Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman have been blocked as hoaxers, please proceed with cleaning up after them. Fences&Windows 22:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch here. I turned up a few relevant sources while trying to work out what exactly was going on here, which will probably support the restored text. I will try to find time to put them in.--SabreBD (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Planning applications

I've removed this again. 1. Planning applications are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. If we can find reliable sources discussing these planning applications in a way that makes them significant to this article, then we might be able to include them. 2. It's clearly pov, "Notwithstanding the stringent conditions on modification of the property" is suggesting that something is fishy. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC) [sock puppet's post deleted here]

What is pov is coupling 'not withstanding etc" with the applications as this clearly is a suggestion, without evidence, that something is wrong. This is a case where primary sources are not being used carefully. WP:PAPER is irrelevant except for its comment on not being a publisher of original thought. If this hasn't been covered as an issue in reliable sources than it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the property in the book mentioned - here - so I have removed that sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[sock puppet's post deleted here]

Clear-out of residue hoax/sockpuppet text

I have thoroughly reviewed the edit history of this article which has been infested by hoax text submitted by several sock-puppets, as identified by the good work of Ghmyrtle, Dougweller, Snowden and others. Good work! I will remove more suspect text not supported by sources quoted, which are almost certainly the work of the hoaxer identified. This article needs to be stripped right back to basic facts supported by credible sources due to its propensity to be attacked by this hoaxer with often plausible sounding "stories". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

7 edits performed which have now stripped out all hoax text from this article that I have been able to identify. All material remaining assertions checked and agreed to credible sources quoted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)