Talk:Devonshire Lodge

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 02:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Devonshire Lodge

• ... that the Devonshire Lodge (pictured) hosted Al Capone as well as several Canadian prime ministers?

• Source: May, Gary (5 June 2014). "This Restored Windsor Mansion Hosted Capone and Paul Martin Jr". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 29 June 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2025.

• • ALT1: ... that future Canadian prime minister Paul Martin searched for a rum-runner tunnel in the Devonshire Lodge (pictured)? Source: May, Gary (5 June 2014). "This Restored Windsor Mansion Hosted Capone and Paul Martin Jr". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 29 June 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2025.
  • ALT2: ... that the demolition of the Devonshire Lodge (pictured) was announced to attract potential buyers? Source: Maluske, Michelle (6 August 2024). "'It's All in Good Fun': Local Realtor and Owner of Historic Windsor Home Defend Real Estate Listing Video". CTV News. Archived from the original on 3 September 2025. Retrieved 3 September 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Les Malheurs de l'inconstance

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 746 past nominations.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

• The article meets the newness and length requirements. I did not find any close paraphrasing. A full QPQ has been completed. The hooks are cited inline and verified in the sources; admittedly, the article uses a referencing that is atypical from what I am used to, but that is not an issue for DYK purposes.

My preferences are ALT1 and ALT2, but they both cannot be approved as currently written: ALT1 could be reworded to make it "hookier" or "exciting", if you know what I mean (i.e. the searching for the rum tunnel could be reworded somewhat). ALT2 is technically correct according to the source, but also inaccurate and also not directly stated in the article. The article does not exactly say that the demolition was "announced to attract potential buyers", at least not directly. It might be better to reword the hook as saying that, to attract buyers, they put out a notice claiming it would be demolished (even though they had no plans of doing so, and could not do it anyway). It would be more accurate to the source too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• • Hi Narutolovehinata5. As much as I'd love to paint a picture of him crawling on his hands and knees searching a dusty old cellar for a tunnel, the source doesn't support it. It simply says that he spent hours searching for the rumoured tunnel with his sister and friends. As for ALT2, omitting context while still reflecting the source is a common practice in writing hooks, and adding that it was impossible for them to legally demolish the structure actually detracts the hookiness (which is strange, given your concerns about ALT1). The fact that this video was meant to attract buyers is already clear from its the phrase "one video", which links the hook sentence with the previous one, and the video is also mentioned (in less detail) in that sentence's source which makes the collocation clear.

To put it bluntly, I'm done with peopling for now, so I'll withdraw this nomination.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Well, I did not mean to say that the "they aren't allowed to demolish it" fact should be included in ALT2, but rather that it should just be rephrased to make it a bit more obvious that demolishing was never actually on the cards. Something like "to attract buyers, X claimed that the Devonshire Lodge would be demolished?" Not that exact wording, of course, but moreso the thought. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• That's the thing, the ad framed it as an announcement, complete with an "interview" with a "concerned neighbour" (per source), only to contextualize it after the fact.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that the article has been deleted per CSD G7, so I am closing this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yo Narutolovehinata5, fyi now, the article has been restored albeit against the author's will and where he only substantial content of the page was added by its author. (On the somewhat curious grounds that this already high-quality article needs polishing.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants to adopt this nomination, please feel free. After my current FAC is done I'm going into retirement on this project; apparently feeling that your wishes are being disrespected is a violation of WP:OWN now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll adopt this. If I've made any errors in reviving this, can someone please let me know and I'll fix them. I've struck ALT1 and ALT2 which apparently held up a review previously. For QPQ I can offer up Template:Did you know nominations/Timebomb (Kylie Minogue song). TarnishedPath^talk 14:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to continue this considering the nominator did not want it to continue anymore, although since it already has an adopter, it's already water under the bridge. For what it's worth, I have to agree with the comments at WP:UNDELETE that supported recreation: the article was already in a good state, and requesting that it be deleted despite others wanting to work on it does indeed arguably fall under OWN, even if the article creator was the only editor at the time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that Devonshire Lodge (pictured) has been described as "so unusual on the outside that it defies any particular style"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200412203113/https://www.cbc.ca/life/video/step-inside-this-restored-1920s-mansion-first-owned-by-infamous-rum-runner-harry-low-1.5526804
• ALT2: ... that Devonshire Lodge (pictured) has been owned by a bootlegger, a car dealer, a politician, a bingo hall proprietor, a pharmacy owner, and a cabinet maker? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20250422030933/https://www.windsorpubliclibrary.com/devonshire-lodge-aka-the-low-martin-house/
• ALT3: ... that future Canadian prime minister Paul Martin recalls frequently searching the basement of Devonshire Lodge for a bootlegging tunnel? Source: May, Gary (5 June 2014). "This Restored Windsor Mansion Hosted Capone and Paul Martin Jr". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 29 June 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2025.

TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been stuck for a while so chiming in again. ALT2 and ALT3 are my preferences, but I think ALT2 would be better if it mentioned "future Canadian prime minister" rather than just "politician". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

!Narutolovehinata5 ALT2a: ... that Devonshire Lodge (pictured) has been owned by a bootlegger, a car dealer, a future Canadian prime minister, a bingo hall proprietor, a pharmacy owner, and a cabinet maker? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20250422030933/https://www.windsorpubliclibrary.com/devonshire-lodge-aka-the-low-martin-house/

I listed the different ownership (those that are mentioned in the source) in chronological order. This can be played with a bit if you think it makes a difference. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding ALT2, I was actually wondering if "future Prime minister" should be mentioned either at the start or at the end, because that's the hookiest part. However, if either happened, it would break the existing chronological order, so it is up to you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The only way I can think of doing something like that would be to partially break the chronological ordering. At present I can't think of any other ordering which results in the desired effect and maintains some sort of logical consistency. Perhaps best to keep it chronological? I could potentially do reverse chronological but that would still end up with the prime minister in the middle. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess we could leave the wording as is. It's not ideal, but so are the other options. As for ALT3, it doesn't exactly match the hook as the article uses "rumrunning" instead of "bootlegging" (which I know are synonyms, but it could still cause issues at ERRORS or elsewhere). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the source uses both terms in different places, I've updated the article rumrunning -> bootlegging. TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, was there anything else I needed to do to either the nomination or the article? TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I could just approve ALT2 as is. Right now, I'm confused: what source is "May 2014"? I was able to verify the other owners but not Duff or Martin as they're in the "May 2014" source. Admittedly I am not a fan of the referencing system used in the article as it makes it more difficult to check each DYK-related claim.

Also, I'm very sorry about this, as I just realized: ALT2a is actually inaccurate as Prime Minister Martin never owned the house, he just visited it. This is my fault as that wording was my suggestion, so I am owning up to it, so it probably needs to be modified to "the father of a..." or something like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, May-2014. I've struck ALT2a as I think messing with ALT2 further would probably make it awkward and clunky. I'd be happy to proceed with either of ALT2 or ALT3, both of which you have indicated are your preferences. TarnishedPath^talk 03:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: The sales to Duff and Martin are also detailed in the Windsor Public Library source. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please fix the referencing in the article as, right now, it's hard to verify the sourcing due to the referencing style used. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5, I'm no fan of the referencing style either; however, it's a perfectly valid style to use and verification is no harder than usual. TarnishedPath^talk 08:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5, I'm going to request a new reviewer here also. I think it is far from reasonable for you to demand that I completely change from a referencing style, which is used in many GA class articles, in order to get a full review out of you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not say that the referencing style needed to be changed. The reference just had to be clarified because in the article, it was not clear what source the "May 2014" reference was referring to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You do understand how stating "[p]lease fix the referencing in the article as, right now, it's hard to verify the sourcing due to the referencing style used" comes across as a demand to change the referencing style for the entire article? TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came out that way, but that wasn't my intention. I could have worded it better: admittedly I am not used to seeing this particular referencing style, but the comment was intended more as a comment on how difficult it was to verify information rather than a request to clarify the reference. I did not actually have an issue finding the Library source, it was the "May 2014" reference that I had trouble with, as at a glance it wasn't clear what reference it was referring to. I just need to have the reference clarified and I can approve this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: what is wrong with May 2014? {{sfn}} is one of the most common referencing systems we have (indeed, it's in current use on the main page's TFA, today). The source author's surname is May, the source is from 2014, so what else would you expect to see other than {{sfn|May|2014}}? (And, re. at a glance it wasn't clear what reference it was referring to: it doesn't need a glance, a mouse-click takes one to the full bibliographic entry.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a bit of a brain fart and thought that "May 2014" was referring to a date and not a surname. I've now been able to verify ALT2, so I am approving both ALT2 and ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad it was just that simple. I'd just written a huge response about how this referencing system works that didn't end up getting posted because of an edit conflict. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Confession, I did a doubletake when I saw it too  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

In this circumstance I think we can blame the way the {{sfn}} templates work in that they end up showing the author's family name followed by a space and then the year of publication in the citations subsection. It would probably reduce confusion if the space was replaced by a hyphen. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath I asked about the possibility of comma separation a while ago. I got the usual helpful response, so nothing happened. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi hilarious. Before you wrote this comment I'd just made another request at Template_talk:Sfn#Can_we_replace_the_space_with_a_hyphen?. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Cool, you might have beter luck! —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a bit of feedback and made some edits to remove any possible confusion. See Special:Diff/1313082910/1314257001. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Outside scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

@Crisco 1492: I think this article is outside the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography as this article does not discuss how this building is directly related to a crime or the criminal law that might make this building illegal. Other than the possibly of this building being construction and owned by a criminal, and hosting criminals. Harry Low does not appear to have been convicted of a criminal offence that involved spending time in prison; tax evasion is usually not considered a crime and Low does not appear to have been prosecuted for using his wealth to build the lodge. This building has also been owned by a Canadian member of parliament and hosted prime ministers of Canada, yet is has not been included in WikiProject Governments of Canada. I think a stronger argument is needed to justify inclusion than just being owned by someone who was connected to criminal activity. An example of the sort of thing could justify inclusion might be that the lodge was the scene of an infamous crime that had a significant impact in some way. If you, or anyone else, are aware of other relevant information that would justify inclusion, please include this information in the article. See WP:PROJSCOPE, WP:OVERBANNER. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• I had thought that being built with the proceeds of crime, and used to conduct criminal acts (at the very least, conspiracy to commit smuggling), was sufficient, but if you disagree then feel free to remove the banner.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  If the article clearly drew a clear connection between Low's wealth being ill-gotten gains through the proceeds of crime and he was deprived of ownership of the lodge as a result then that might be enough to justify inclusion. But that is not the historical record. The laws of the time don't appear to have identified Low's activities as being criminal. Remember, he was the CEO of a legitimate business, so his wealth can be legitimately explained. At the time, his business interests included legitimately producing alcoholic liquor in Canada that was then smuggled to the USA. However, he was never convicted of a crime in relation to that smuggling activity. Wikipedia's standard for considering someone a criminal means a person is presumed innocent until found guilty in court. As Low is deceased, he can no longer defend himself from any allegations of criminal behaviour. While Wikipedia might now say he was involved in smuggling, the historical record does not show he was ever convicted of a crime involving smuggling. Also, he was never imprisoned for tax evasion, only fined and losing his wealth because if it. In this case I think Wikipedia has insufficient evidence to apply a crime related label to Low or the lodge he owned. Please also remember the more general principle that correlation does not imply causation; just because Low might have been involved in criminal activities does not make the Devonshire Lodge a criminal building, or even crime related. I think you need to demonstrate a crime was committed by building the lodge, the lodge was clearly used for criminal purposes or at least a notable crime was committed there. All of those scenarios needs a court conviction to prove the case. The current article doesn't support that. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Devonshire Lodge_(Low-Martin_House),_Windsor,_Ontario,_2025-08-31_01.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 14, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-10-14. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Devonshire Lodge, also known as the Low–Martin House, is a mansion located in the Walkerville neighbourhood of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Commissioned by the rum-runner Harry Low in 1927 and designed by George Lawton, likely with input from Low, the mansion and its accompanying coach house were built in the style of a Cotswold cottage and completed in 1928. After Low defaulted on his mortgage, the building was sold in 1938 and in 1949. In 1961, it was purchased by Paul Martin Sr., a local Member of Parliament, who lived there until his death. By 2008, the Lodge required extensive renovations, which were ultimately undertaken over a two-year period by Vern Myslichuk after he purchased it in 2012. The Devonshire Lodge was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in 2008.

Photograph credit: Chris Woodrich

Recently featured:

• Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
• Little owl
• Emily Davison

Name

Why is it called Devonshire Lodge? Devon isn't in the Cotswolds. Stronach (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)