Jump to content

Talk:London Beer Flood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:11f2:723b:cac4:abd9 (talk) at 17:17, 10 November 2022 (→‎Mass of beer.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleLondon Beer Flood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 11, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 17, 2019, October 17, 2020, and October 17, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Location of brewery

An IP is attempting to remove this reference, which at page 62 confirms the location as shown on the map in the article.

  • Mathias, Peter (1959). The Brewing Industry in England, 1700-1830. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, an IP is not trying to change it: the IP is reverting you back to the original version. The address is shown on several other citations that are relied upon. You seem to be using one source that has different details as being superior to all the others. Just because you have seen that one source, it doesn’t trump all the other citations. Please don’t edit war against the weight of the other citations and please don’t accuse me of vandalism when you’re ignoring BRD and STATUSQUO just to get your own way. 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you mind, please, logging in to your account and editing with that? I am amazed that you will not believe the contemporary map. If one source contradicts that, and another confirms it, it seems clear which is more reliable. Do you really believe the brewery was not in Bainbridge Street? Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, what do other sources say on the topic? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I see only one citation in the article for “at the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street”. But I do not know what it says. However, if you look at the contemporary map in the article (copied here), that confirms Mathias. Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at the other sources in the article. Just because one gate opens onto the road doesn’t mean that’s the address (how many goods entrances are shoved around the back of the address?) in other words, Mathias isn’t confirmed). Oh, and I don’t have an account to log into; please just deal with the question of the building, not me (on content not on editors, please) 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, which other sources are you referring us to? I see only one. And could you please quote exactly what Hornsey 2007, p. 450, says? Mathias page 62 can be referred to here. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here, here, and here support the article's current claim. What other sources support Mathias'? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria. That last source says the brewery was first established in 1764 in a tavern on the site as described, which is not very helpful for 1814. The inline citation to Hornsey confirms Mathias, “just off of the Tottenham Court Road”. That is referring to 1814. It says nothing about Oxford Street. It also states that this brewery was built in 1795. See here. Moonraker (talk)-

That doesn't confirm Mathias though, as it doesn't say anything about Bainbridge. What sources say specifically what Mathias does? Also it doesn't say the brewery was built in 1795, it says the vat was built then. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“In Bainbridge Street, one side of which was nearly occupied by the immense brewery of Meux & Co...” See here. Moonraker (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn’t mean it was based only on that street (it’s a large building and backs onto other streets. See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ga4MYyZq-RMC&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Meux%20&f=false Is one of the sources used, which says “at the junction of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road” 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_8xRAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Meux&f=false “The Horseshoe Brewery, 269 Tottenham Court Road” 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, your last link says “prior to 1764”. It seems clear that “the immense brewery of Meux & Co“ could not have been in Tottenham Court Road. No doubt the brewery moved. Here is another reference. “Meux Henry & Co. Brewers. Bainbridge - street, St. Giles's”, in The Post Office London Directory (1817), Page 225. Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn’t move - that’s a complete misrepresentation of what is written there. The brewery pre-bated the Meux ownership. 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, indeed, your last source doesn’t say a particular Horseshoe brewery moved, but it refers to several different ones, including in Clerkenwell and Nine Elms. Seems to me we need to stick to the sources which have a firm date for the location and are nearest in date to 1814. The events of 1814 clearly happened at a very large brewery, such as the one shown on the map, in Bainbridge Street, as per the Post Office Directory of 1817, and not in a “tavern” in Tottenham Court Road. Moonraker (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it’s clear that the last source is referring to the others I provided (from the sources in the article) and the ones Nikkimaria has already posted. To try and claim it is a different site, or that it magically moved is clutching at straws. There may well have been an entrance on the side road of Bainbridge Street, but it obviously wasn’t the only one - that is clear from the map, the sources and drawings of the time if you do a Google search for it. As the site is clearly identifiable from the sources and from the description, I am unclear as to why you think there is a need to change from something that has already been shown to be correct. (I’ll add that I don’t think Bainbridge road is necessarily wrong (many factories have more than one address for the offices and the operations side), but it doesn’t seem either to be an improvement or worth the change). 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the present inline citation for the location of the brewery in 1814 is to Hornsey 2007, p. 450. He is writing about 1814, and he is being relied on for “at the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street” but he doesn’t say that. If we go on relying on him at all, I would suggest that citation should be for what he actually says, which is “just off the Tottenham Court Road”. That is consistent with Mathias, who is also writing about 1814 and says “in Bainbridge Street, St Giles, just off the Tottenham Court Road”, I would suggest we could also cite him, and then add that Horwood's Plan of London (1792-1799) shows only one large brewery, which is in Bainbridge Road, and that in 1817 the Meux brewery was there, with a citation to the Post Office Directory of 1817. Do you have any other reliable sources for the location in the 1810s that you would want to cite in the article? Moonraker (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have provided sufficient sources to show slightly different results than that. It’s the same brewery, for crying out loud, and it’s large enough to cover a block, meaning it abuts four streets and would have been connected to all four of them (a google search backs up that it is referred to in connection with three of the streets). I’m still not sure why you are pushing hard for something that isn’t supported by the majority of sources and doesn’t seem either to be an improvement or worth the change, but the whys and wherefores of ‘winning’ on Wiki at all costs, are beyond me, even when both pieces of information under discussion are correct, but one is more identifiable and more commonly referred to. 109.249.185.92 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second IP, the “different results” do not seem to be from the period of the “beer flood”, which is what this page is about. Can either of you please answer my questions above? Do you agree with the article saying what the cited source actually says, plus another specialist academic source which supports it, and do you have any other reliable sources for the location of the brewery in the 1810s that you would want to cite here in the article? Moonraker (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The brewery is the same one (obviously). You can split hairs as much as you want, but we’re talking about the same site. Again, you seem to be more concerned about ‘winning’ something that doesn’t need winning, but you also seem to want to keeping smearing me. Never mind - I’ll leave you to ‘win’ whatever you think you’ve won, regardless of what the sources say. 109.249.185.92 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources give the same location with specific reference to the event, eg this or this. Also of potential interest: The deepest borehole in central London, under the former Horseshoe Brewery at Tottenham Court Road. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those, Nikkimaria. The sciencedirect.com page is the reliable source there, and it doesn’t say the brewery was in Tottenham Court Road in 1814. I think the IP has accepted that it wasn’t. We know it was there earlier. Strange Tales of Ale and A-Z of Curious London are knockabout sources compared with the Cambridge University Press, a contemporary map, and a contemporary Post Office directory. Anyway, could you please reply to my question above, do you have any objection to the location being cited from our more academic sources, Hornsey and Mathias, in line with what they actually say? Moonraker (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think given that there are far more sources saying Tottenham and Oxford than there are saying Bainbridge, the article's current wording is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”I think the IP has accepted that it wasn’t”: no, not at all. Looking at the maps, various photos and the number of reliable sources, the current wording is clear and correct. It also has the benefit of being on two of London’s better-known roads and is thus more readily grasped by more people. The only reason I stopped commenting is that you are making a huge deal over nothing and trying to play silly sods with the section below about “two IPs” (both me, dynamically assigned when I re-open my browser). This is such a non-discussion I’ve only posted again as you were telling porky pies about what my thoughts were (you don’t know me, you don’t know what I think or believe and please don’t try to do that again).

See also:

109.249.185.92 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two IPs on this page

  • On looking up 2A01:4C8:414:6532:C028:75A1:EC3C:B537

and 109.249.185.92, they are both coming up in the same residential street in Forestdale, London, with exactly the same coordinates. May I suggest the two of you compare notes? Moonraker (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t be snide please. My IP changes when the signal drops or when I reopen my browser. I’m obviously the same person on two IPs, but as they are dynamic I have no control over which one I am assigned. 109.249.185.92 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lined concrete

In the “Later” section;

What is “lined concrete”?

Is it wood lined with concrete?

Concrete lined with wood?

All concrete?? (Or something else?)

Note: lining is interior; perhaps the concrete was exterior; and was a (coating).

MBG02 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An oddity from the history of the page

At this edit, User:SchroCat, an editor now retired, added “at the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street”, as the location of the Horse Shoe Brewery in 1814, supported by the Hornsey citation. But Hornsey doesn’t say that at all. The same edit added the map I have copied above, with a caption saying “The Horseshoe Brewery (centre), at the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street”. But the map doesn’t show that. And yet SchroCat also added in the same edit “At the rear of the Horse Shoe Brewery ran New Street a small cul-de-sac, which joined on to Dyott Street...”. So SchroCat accepted that the Horse Shoe brewery was the one shown on the map, in Bainbridge Street. This is all quite odd. Moonraker (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the IP editor that this is really not worth arguing over. The map clearly shows that the brewery is at the junction of Tottenham Court Rd and Oxford St, on Banbridge St, behind Great Russell St and adjacent to New St. Or on the junction of Bainbridge St and Tottenham Court Rd where it meets Oxford St. If it was still there, any local would probably describe it as on the junction of Tottenham Court Rd and Oxford St (as the Dominion Theatre is sometimes described). Anybody looking at the map can see where it once was or get an idea from the description. This 1815 map: http://ogimages.bl.uk/images/007/007ZZZ000000015U00002000[SVC2].jpg, shows an entrance to the brewery directly on the junction. I don't get the all the effort being expended to try to alter the description of the location to something different but no more helpful. Crispclear (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

I made some changes as the sources (as far as I could see) did not support the conclusions about how many houses were damaged or destroyed but my changes have been undone twice and I've been told I've ignored the sources (would have been nice to point out which sources support the claims) and mangled the English (again would be nice to point out how I've done so). My changes are in the edit history if anybody wants to put them back. My position is that the description of the disaster as written isn't supported by the sources (at least not those cited in support), but I doubt the article is widely read by casual visitors so not worth getting in a fight about. Crispclear (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the newspapers from the time, the Evening Mail of Wednesday 19 October 1814 says "Two houses in New-street, adjoining the brewhouse, were totally demolished" a little later it says "The back parts of the houses...Nos 24 and 23 in Great Russell-street, were nearly destroyed". 109.249.185.92 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't cited in support of those statements (or at all) in the article though. Crispclear (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it. 109.249.185.92 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I had access to it. But then there's also the potential problem of my mangling the English. Crispclear (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

In the lead, there's the word "vat." Since this word is not so common, suggest linking it to barrel. GeraldWL 16:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Also suggest linking brewery and liquidation. GeraldWL 16:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both vat and brewery are quite common terms. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, not so common outside the universe of breweries, as far as I'm concerned. It would be worth linking to ESL people and stuff. If it's linkable, why not? GeraldWL 07:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are common enough terms not to worry about without breaching WP:OVERLINK. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that vat isn't. Some may think it's a typo of hat or bat, and may "fix" it, unaware it is the synonym of a barrel. GeraldWL 09:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A typo of hat or bat? I’m sorry, but that’s ludicrous, given the context. It’s a common enough term for most people. I asked my 12 year old son what it meant and he got it, so I don’t think many people will struggle with it. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's your son, it's just one person. Don't take offence to this, but try ask many ESL people and see if they know it. I myself, one that has learned English for 13 years, require to search in Bing and wait for 5 minutes due to the internet connection only to know that it is a synonym of a barrel. If you're saying that due to the context a helpful link to barrel (just use the redirect) is not needed, then perhaps the link to porter is also not needed. This is also similar to imperial gallon-- only Americans and a significant portion of outsiders know the imperial system, so a link would suffice. Why is a short link so huge of dispute? GeraldWL 12:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's you, it's just one person. As this is the English language Wikipedia we don’t link common terms. Please see WP:OVERLINK. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh is vat even a common term? Okay forget that, I don't wanna debate something that will go astray-- is imperial gallons common among ALL English-speaking people? I bet only ALL Americans know it, and this is discriminate towards the United States. This is the English, not American Wikipedia, so I suggest linking imperial gallons. GeraldWL 12:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m From the UK and I recognise imperial gallons clearly. Again I suggest you actually read OVERLINK, which says not to link them if conversions are supplied, which they are. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should give a relief for those not as familiar with the English language as we are. I still stress on linking to vat, which I'm sure is not so common. That is, ofc, "vat." As OVERLINK states, "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully [can be linked]." A vat is relevant to beer and can help guide the ESLs through the whole article's topic. I think for most, it could not be considered "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." As OVERLINK also state: "The purpose of linking is to clarify." GeraldWL 13:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for foreign language students. “Vat” is a common enough word for English speakers to qualify as an “everyday word understood by most readers in context”. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the English Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for foreign language students"-- I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Wikipedia must be understandable to a significant level of people, although not as high as in the Simple English. According to Oxford Dictionary, the term "vat" is only used often to describe a barrel. We should make Wikipedia accessible to all, not just those in the UK, US, and Canada, by clarifying possible jargons. Vat may be common in the English and Western hemisphere, but not in all parts of the world, where it may be thought of as a slang. Furthermore, I think it would be worth putting those pipes in the word, as it is relevant to the article's topic: beer. GeraldWL 13:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we’ll have agreement on this, so I will bow out, but this seems to be an awful lot of pressure to add a link for a common word. If other people want to add their thoughts you may get your way, but it’s a tortuous way of doing meaningless steps. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dyott Street" => "George Street"

On the map of 1894, one can easily locate the Horseshoe Brewery and the unfortunate New Street that was adjacent to it. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=20&lat=51.51701&lon=-0.12899&layers=117746212&b=7

However, I believe that Dyott Street did not exist to that extent in 1814, and it seems that Dyott Street was renamed following the destruction of the St. Giles Rookery. If you look at the the map of 1850, cf. https://london1850.com/images/cross11b.jpg one can see George Street taking the place of Dyott Street, and it is George Street (along with Church Street/Lane to the South) that were discussed by Beames in his book.

>> While Horwood (1799) has Diot Street (as shown on the article), Langley & Belch's New Map of London (1812) is definitely marked with George Street.

UPDATE: Definitive Source for the renaming of George Street to Dyott Street can be found on the Insurance Plan of London Vol. VIII: sheet 198 (1888) cf. https://cloud.maptiler.com/data/new/edit?basemap=https://maps.georeferencer.com/georeferences/f0d21896-7aeb-59e6-9711-1455d1893774/2019-10-01T08:40:08.006175Z/map.json?key=4HG0mpU1uJywEuwuxdss This is marked "Dyott St. (Late George St.)"

Further Update: Definitive Source for the renaming of 'Dyot' Street to George Street can be found in "Plan of the parishes or division of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury" as engraved by Hewitt, Nathaniel Rogers - published in 1815. In 1732, "London &c. actually survey'd by Wm. Morgan" names it Maidenhead Lane.


(20040302 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Gallons

We have quite a few sources for the volume of beer. I have not checked any of them. But note that in 1814 England was using ale gallons, not imperial, to measure beer. These are the same size as a US gallon. So any contemporary sources for the volume in gallons would need to be adjusted. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it was the wine gallon that was a different size. The ale gallon is slightly bigger than imperial, but not enough to fuss about. The ale barrel also shrunk slightly when the imperial system was adopted, but again it's not much. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of beer.

The article quotes 581800 litres of beer at a minimum. Beer has a density of 106,0 kg per litre https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=density+of+beer Therefore this volume of beer does not weigh 32 long tons, 581800 times 1,06 gives 616708 kg or almost 617 tonnes. Avi8tor (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust the previous to 1,06 kg per litre for beer, not 106 kg (decimal point missing). the result still give the same mass. Avi8tor (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I put in my original edit summary, and as I repeated above, I have returned the figures to those given in the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not those worked out by your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you can find a different source which expressly gives the figures you claim, then please bring them here to discuss them. As to your description here that my constructive edit made in good faith was "vandalism", you really should not be throwing round uncivil terms without understanding what they mean.
The fact I do not have a named account is neither here nor there - a registered account carries no additional weight when it comes to content disputes. Once upon a time I used to have an account, before I scrambled the password; the name on that account when I brought this article to FAC was SchroCat. - The article formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Beer_Flood&oldid=1121128354"