Talk:Fairlawne

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kent Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Kent tasks: edit history watch purge Here are some Kent related tasks you can do: Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category. Edit the Top and High importance articles. Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council NPOV: K College Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion. Architecture Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've tried to update to reflect the current owner of the Fairlawne estate. Looking at UK govt records, it seems like the estate is actually owned by a company, which is in turn owned by a holding company, which is in turn owned by another holding company. This was also the case when Khalid owned the estate.

Fahad currently holds the majority share (75% or more) of these parent companies, so can be considered to own the property itself. I've not been able to find information online regarding Fahad, and it's unclear whether the shares were sold, given to, or inherited by him, and his relation to Khalid isn't clear either.

If someone who knows a bit more about Saudi govt records could find this information, that would be ideal. Kalinsorh (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalinsorh I think all we can say is that Khalid has died. You should read Wikipedia:No original research. We need to wait until the new owner is reported in a reliable source, or the house is listed for sale by an estate agent or such like. I have rephrased your addition to read "Khalid died in January 2021, and the current ownership is uncertain." Hope that helps. Edwardx (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx I'm not really sure that I understand what you mean by No original research, although I am new to Wikipedia. I sourced the information from official gov records, which I can provide as a citation if needed.

The reason I mention ambiguity is that I'm not entirely sure how to represent this in the article. The information currently on there states that Khalid "owned" the property, when in reality he also only owned a majority share. This is the same case for Fahad, so surely either the information currently on the article needs changing to clarify that Khalid only owned a share previously, or it should be possible to mention that Fahad does own the estate.

The only thing that changed following Khalid's death was that his stake in ownership was transferred to Fahad. No other transfers are mention on Gov records.

I agree that we don't have anything official to tell us whether the shares were sold, inherited, or gifted to Fahad, but we can relatively easily verify that Fahad does in fact own the property.

Thanks for taking the time to read over my changes, and let me know if the records I mention still count as No original research. Kalinsorh (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is all explained in Wikipedia:No original research. Companies House and such like info is a primary source, and we can only use that to support a reliable secondary source (eg the 2011 Telegraph article). The 2011 Telegraph article states that he owns Fairlawne, and even if that is not strictly accurate, that is still okay. Until we have new reliable secondary sources, we just have to leave things as they are. There is plenty of out-of-date info on Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx Thanks for elaborating further. I wasn't aware that the secondary source rule applied to official records. I'll see if I'm able to get something published in the local newspaper, researching and detailing this, at some point. Kalinsorh (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kalinsorh. If you can get something published in a decent local newspaper, that might suffice. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]