This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fleet Street and the Inner and Middle temple are actually in the City of London. I think including them in Holborn is stretching its boundaries way too far, I'm not even convinced that it should be anywhere outside the old Metropolitan Borough of Holborn. Any thoughts, anyone? Morwen 23:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I also agree, furthermore there are many other comments which are simply incorrect, for example the image for 'Old Holborn' Tobacco is not the Prudential but Staples Inn, opposite, which isn't even mentioned. 79.75.2.246 ( talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
I'm assuming that this is the first time that anyone in the UK had seen one; inhabitants of countries where the gorilla is a native species would surely beg to differ otherwise!-- Alex Whittaker 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of the "History" section seems to be the same as an article in Covent Garden Magazine, here
The WP entry was 2007-05-10. The magazine's Wayback Machine snapshot of 2007-04-19 includes the article, although the text is not preserved. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the references to the alleged course of the Fleet and the 'bourne' which are wildly erroneous. It is simply impossible for a stream to run uphill from Temple Bar to Holborn Viaduct. 79.75.42.175 ( talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Tony S
I have reinstated the correct course of the Fleet or Bourne as it is impossible for any river to flow up hill from Temple Bar. Furthermore there is no other evidence of any river running in that direction. Why don't you go and look at the Temple Bar and walk from there to Holborn Viaduct and see that it cannot be done. 79.72.17.57 ( talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Tony S
The sources you quote are not authoritative and in fact erroneous. The Holborn and the Fleet are the same stream and as I pointed out rise at Hampstead. No rivers are locatable near Temple Bar. You can see this course clearly on early maps, eg Agas 1640s. Holborn / Fleet was culverted by the City to provide the Fleet Market. The Viaduct was built later 1875. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Because the Old English words for stream 'Bourne' and tidal inlet, estuary 'Fleet' are different has led to the confusion that they refer to different features. With the development of Modern English the connection between the two was lost and when the early twentieth sources you quote (and whom the later source you mention relies on), looked at the issue they compounded the error and assumed that the hamlet of 'Holborn' was on the route of the stream rather than the route to the 'Fleet'. 'Holborn Bridge' and 'Holborn Viaduct' cross the Fleet. Temple Bar is not the source for any stream. The earlier sources you cite were very confused and probably meant 'Holborn Bar' and then offered both as a compounded and ignorant compromiseHave you never wondered why, for example, neither Chancery Lane nor Fetter Lane are not, and never have been, called 'Holborn'? Any other changes are regarded as wilful vandalism. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are confused by the various public works over the centuries. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
Continuously deleting correct information replacing ill researched and ill-informed cited and irrelevant information is vandalism and has been reverted. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
No, not 'prominence' to 'Fleet version' - the only river in these parts is the Fleet. There is no separate river called 'Holborn'. In fact we have an early reference to the local church as 'St Andrew's Holburnestrate', Holborn Street is the earliest name we have for the area, a street leading to the bourne (a stream) which is the upper part of the river, which at its juncture with the Thames (a fleot/ fleet) is called Fleet. The City acquired an Act for its major public works, called the Holborn Valley Improvement Scheme and the valley is what is the Fleet. Has it not occured to you as to why any river should spring forth in the middle of the street? Your sources are incoherent on this and many other points of detail. It isn't authoritave just because they make it up. No serious historian has any reliance on these works. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) The Holborn is not lost, it's where it has always been, and its course is not uncertain, we know that it rises at Hampstead and flows into the Thames. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 09:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
OH NO !!! I wondered why you had not already quoted the discredited John Stow. Why don't you cite Walt Disney as well?. Stow is probably the originator of the story and your other later commentators just copied him. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 07:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
OK, agreed - we'll draw a line under this last edit of yours. Strype was relying on Stow - always a bad idea. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
I am totally defeated here by the " verifiability not truth" policy on Wikipedia: because this edit is soundly referenced, it must stand. However, I can only urge that readers wanting to use the true /ˈhoʊbɚn/ HOE-bərn refer to the earlier edit. This previous version I can verify only from the totally unacceptable WP:NOR of having worked there, and lived just up the Grays Inn Road, for seven years. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been paved in 1417 by Henry V, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QFkMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=%22as+well+to+the+king%27s+carriages+passing+that+way,+as+to+those+of+his+subjects.%22&source=bl&ots=Iqqe1ztGyE&sig=5Poxs9emAPZQT8OD-Bmo2uj3rS8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJqbv-4_7TAhXGCMAKHWuDAfUQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22as%20well%20to%20the%20king's%20carriages%20passing%20that%20way%2C%20as%20to%20those%20of%20his%20subjects.%22&f=false CitizenLit ( talk) 15:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holborn. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fleet Street and the Inner and Middle temple are actually in the City of London. I think including them in Holborn is stretching its boundaries way too far, I'm not even convinced that it should be anywhere outside the old Metropolitan Borough of Holborn. Any thoughts, anyone? Morwen 23:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I also agree, furthermore there are many other comments which are simply incorrect, for example the image for 'Old Holborn' Tobacco is not the Prudential but Staples Inn, opposite, which isn't even mentioned. 79.75.2.246 ( talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
I'm assuming that this is the first time that anyone in the UK had seen one; inhabitants of countries where the gorilla is a native species would surely beg to differ otherwise!-- Alex Whittaker 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of the "History" section seems to be the same as an article in Covent Garden Magazine, here
The WP entry was 2007-05-10. The magazine's Wayback Machine snapshot of 2007-04-19 includes the article, although the text is not preserved. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the references to the alleged course of the Fleet and the 'bourne' which are wildly erroneous. It is simply impossible for a stream to run uphill from Temple Bar to Holborn Viaduct. 79.75.42.175 ( talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Tony S
I have reinstated the correct course of the Fleet or Bourne as it is impossible for any river to flow up hill from Temple Bar. Furthermore there is no other evidence of any river running in that direction. Why don't you go and look at the Temple Bar and walk from there to Holborn Viaduct and see that it cannot be done. 79.72.17.57 ( talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Tony S
The sources you quote are not authoritative and in fact erroneous. The Holborn and the Fleet are the same stream and as I pointed out rise at Hampstead. No rivers are locatable near Temple Bar. You can see this course clearly on early maps, eg Agas 1640s. Holborn / Fleet was culverted by the City to provide the Fleet Market. The Viaduct was built later 1875. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Because the Old English words for stream 'Bourne' and tidal inlet, estuary 'Fleet' are different has led to the confusion that they refer to different features. With the development of Modern English the connection between the two was lost and when the early twentieth sources you quote (and whom the later source you mention relies on), looked at the issue they compounded the error and assumed that the hamlet of 'Holborn' was on the route of the stream rather than the route to the 'Fleet'. 'Holborn Bridge' and 'Holborn Viaduct' cross the Fleet. Temple Bar is not the source for any stream. The earlier sources you cite were very confused and probably meant 'Holborn Bar' and then offered both as a compounded and ignorant compromiseHave you never wondered why, for example, neither Chancery Lane nor Fetter Lane are not, and never have been, called 'Holborn'? Any other changes are regarded as wilful vandalism. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are confused by the various public works over the centuries. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
Continuously deleting correct information replacing ill researched and ill-informed cited and irrelevant information is vandalism and has been reverted. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
No, not 'prominence' to 'Fleet version' - the only river in these parts is the Fleet. There is no separate river called 'Holborn'. In fact we have an early reference to the local church as 'St Andrew's Holburnestrate', Holborn Street is the earliest name we have for the area, a street leading to the bourne (a stream) which is the upper part of the river, which at its juncture with the Thames (a fleot/ fleet) is called Fleet. The City acquired an Act for its major public works, called the Holborn Valley Improvement Scheme and the valley is what is the Fleet. Has it not occured to you as to why any river should spring forth in the middle of the street? Your sources are incoherent on this and many other points of detail. It isn't authoritave just because they make it up. No serious historian has any reliance on these works. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 09:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) The Holborn is not lost, it's where it has always been, and its course is not uncertain, we know that it rises at Hampstead and flows into the Thames. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 09:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
OH NO !!! I wondered why you had not already quoted the discredited John Stow. Why don't you cite Walt Disney as well?. Stow is probably the originator of the story and your other later commentators just copied him. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 07:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
OK, agreed - we'll draw a line under this last edit of yours. Strype was relying on Stow - always a bad idea. 79.72.72.253 ( talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)
I am totally defeated here by the " verifiability not truth" policy on Wikipedia: because this edit is soundly referenced, it must stand. However, I can only urge that readers wanting to use the true /ˈhoʊbɚn/ HOE-bərn refer to the earlier edit. This previous version I can verify only from the totally unacceptable WP:NOR of having worked there, and lived just up the Grays Inn Road, for seven years. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been paved in 1417 by Henry V, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QFkMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=%22as+well+to+the+king%27s+carriages+passing+that+way,+as+to+those+of+his+subjects.%22&source=bl&ots=Iqqe1ztGyE&sig=5Poxs9emAPZQT8OD-Bmo2uj3rS8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJqbv-4_7TAhXGCMAKHWuDAfUQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22as%20well%20to%20the%20king's%20carriages%20passing%20that%20way%2C%20as%20to%20those%20of%20his%20subjects.%22&f=false CitizenLit ( talk) 15:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holborn. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)