Talk:Old John

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Where does Old John name originate?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of this could enlighten us? I've always wondered, but never googled... Joseph C Talk 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Stamford built tower about 1780. An old villager named Old John lived in the tower. For celebration of coming of age of a later Earl a huge bonfire was built in the park. The pole around which the bonfire was built burnt through and fell among the crowd striking and killing the poor old man so the tower was named Old John in remembrance of him. [published in 1828 by an unknown author]. This was extracted from a guide book to Bradgate Park and Newtown Linford published in 1950s by City of Leicester Publicity Department. 9 April 2008. James H.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.202.249 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

≠≥±§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.53.201 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take down this article

I think that we should consider taking this article down in protest. According to the BBC, Bradgate Park are claiming that the image of Old John is a trademark. They seem very confused over their understanding of the law but they are bullying semi-professional artists to pay 100 pounds but ignoring Facebook, Twitter and other commercial social media aggregators. In my opinion this is an unfair extension of UK law to legalise what would otherwise be demanding money with menaces. According to the trust's interpretation of the law we should take down this article and every picture that may include a pic of Old John on Wikipedia in all languages and on commons. I suggest that we comply with their unreasonable request in protest. Discuss this here and then raise an RFC to gain consensus. Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting WP comply with their request in order to protest against their request?? How would that work? Could you explain what you think how complying could be considered a 'protest'? Mnemonyx (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rosa Parkes is a good example. The bus company were quite happy to carry her and her friends, but they decided to not use the buses that were supplied - until they agreed to equality. When the US decided to change the law such that it made Wikipedia's "life" difficult, we took it down for the day as we had done in Italy before. When we did we suddenly found out that journos and teachers who said that Wiki was no use ..... couldn't manage without it. Victuallers (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]