Talk:Children Under a Palm

Ownership by Blakes and robberies

I have removed the following. "However these robberies were not reported to the police at the time and are purely conjecture. Indeed as of yet no proof of ownership has been proved by Murray only hisorical documents pertaining to the actual painting." This was not supported by the reference source. I'll look for a source and put them back if I can find one. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent quotes Philip Mould as saying there was no crime report so so I've put that in. "purely conjecture" sounds PoV to me. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reports from 2009 about lack of documentation from the Blake family, but Murray appeared to produce some documentation subsequently. Most sources appear to accept that the picture was owned by the Blake family at one time. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged robberies?

I think that calling the roberies "alleged" is too PoV. I'm not aware of a source that uses the word alleged. The article clearly says that the loss during a series of robberies is a Blake family view. In addition there is the Mould quote about no crime report. Surely that is enough? I propose to remove the word alleged, but will wait a short while in case someone has a source. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who inserted 'alleged', but reading your comment, I agree. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum?

Similarly, I think the word "ultimatum" is not NPoV. Sotheby's were trying to facilitate negotiation and tried to get the parties into a private room. They conveyed Simon Murray's improved offer. They asked whether Selina Varney wished to make a counter offer. Murray was not in a position to withdraw lot 16. That decision was made by Sotheby's because they could no longer guarantee a clear title to any vendor. In addition, the edit was ungramatical, so I will re-write it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't responsible for this part, so excuse my input: it was Philip Mould who used 'ultimatum' in the discussion - which makes it his opinion - and, IMO, he's correct. Selina was given three options the day before and she chose to go ahead with the auction. Then, the next day and just ten minutes before lot 16 was due to be brought out in the auction, she was given a choice. She only had ten minutes to decide including making a counter offer. As Selina pointed out, Sotheby's should have dealt with this the day before. She asked, I'm paraspeaking here, "Were you aware of this yesterday? What changed overnight?" This prompted Philip Mould to describe it an ultimatum. While my opinion following is not for Wikipedia, I feel it was a tactical move on former criminal barrister Simon Murray's part as Sotheby's isn't known to make a move like this so close to the auction of a lot. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sotheby's rep responded to Mould by saying that it was a negotiation. I believe that there is enough in the article for anyone who wishes to interpret the actions as an ultimatum to do so. If we decide to include the word ultimatum, I think we should attribute it to Mould. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

Should it be "Children Under a Palm" rather than "Children Under a Palm Tree"? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so I'll move it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why was the image deleted? Surely it's out of copyright? The artist died in 1910. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Children Under a Palm. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]