Jump to content

Talk:Dog and Duck, St George's Fields

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

Attribution

[edit]

The entire text of the first version of this article was written by User:Colonel Warden at Dog and Duck, replacing previous content about a 1999 to 2001 CITV TV programme.

00:56, 13 June 2013 Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (608 bytes) (-7,053) . (rewrite)

Thincat (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more than one establishment with this name

[edit]

There appear to be a number of establishments with this name.

These just from the first page of results. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junto

[edit]

I noticed this unusual word in the Times quotation and so linked it, as our dab page gives a sense of the meaning in this context. Another editor has unlinked it but I'm not understanding quite why. Let's talk. Warden (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article should generally not link to a disambiguation page. From the context, the meaning intended by the Times is presumably some sort of local pressure group, but there is no article in Wikipedia that describes junto or junta in that sense. Possibly it could be given an inter-wiki link to wiktionary:junto. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. I think a link is useful as I thought initially that the word might be a misprint. I have tried it as a link to wiktionary, as you suggest. Warden (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map location/ site use

[edit]

The current map co-ordinates, when using GoogleMaps, locate to a roundabout on the A302 Westminster Bridge Road. Is this correct? Is the site now just used by the Imperial War Museum, or is it part of the museum site? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IWM uses part of the Bethlem Hospital building and I think the hospital was built in the area that had been owned by the Hedgers but maybe not in exactly the same spot. I adjusted the coordinates, maybe after you'd posted here but without seeing your question. Anyway the article now gives more detail. Thincat (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the first coordinates from the St. George's Fields article. My plan was to then use them to identify the location within a map of London in the infobox but I've not found the right map for that yet. I may pay a visit to the IWM to see if there's any trace left now. Warden (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone added without a reference that it is now in the Cuming Museum. I found a reference that someone was being asked to gift it and a catalogue entry for a lantern slide showing a D & D plaque in the museum. So, I expect it is true. I didn't find definite confirmation and I have lost track of the references. Sadly, the museum is now closed because of a fire and some of its holdings have been destroyed. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The article now tells us that it's in the Cuming Museum but I'm now in suspense as to whether it was destroyed in the great fire this March. Warden (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some old maps in here, including one marking the Dog and Duck. Unfortunately, that particular map doesn't give much context. It has also got a "highlighter" marks which I expect could be removed. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here (search for "Dog and Duck") is the clearest map I can find but it is cropped to close to get an idea of really where the tavern was. Thincat (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John Rocque's 1746 map is certainly public domain, as in this extract: File:Northumberland House on John Rocque's 1746 map of London edited.jpg. So maybe a small extract could be copied and uploaded for this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Rocque's fabulous 1746 map is available here and in particular on this sheet map D3 section 1. Look in the bottom left corner for the tavern and its ponds. It is 26 inches to a mile and is wonderful in its detail. Rocque did his map in 24 sheets (which don't line up quite properly) and this firm has scanned each sheet in nine sections. I have taken 12 sections around the D&D and pieced them together using Inkscape in my very amateur way. D&D is nearish the edge of one of Rocque's sheets, needless to say. Now, MOTCO say I can only use their images for personal use and I'm going to respect this. I think in the UK they possibly have the law on their side but in the US their copyright claim would be unenforcible. The tavern is right next to (south of) Lambeth Road but I suspect the road has been considerably realigned since then. I can't make out quite where it is east-west. Thincat (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How fascinating. Great work, Thincat. But if that existing Commons upload says "This image is in the public domain due to its age", why can't yours? As regards location - if that road coming down at right angles is Kennington Road, then Lambeth Road is running approx SW to NE across the page. In fact, those paths a bit to the right could well be the origin of King Edward Walk SE1. That would put the D&C just opposite that zebra-crossing, near the pedestrian entrance to the park? (have changed my mind - see below) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans. This has something to say about the changes to the roads but I can't really follow it. Are you looking at Google Streetview (I haven't tried that) or do you know the area? The map is obviously public domain but I wonder if the work this firm did in scanning and piecing together is sufficient in UK law to establish a copyright on their work. Perhaps the single sheet would be OK but piecing them together based on their work? I don't know. I'm more sure taht in the US what they have done would not be sufficiently creative to create a copyright. Thincat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GoogleMaps - you'll see that the present Lambeth Road does not run exactly east-west - and Streetview. Just trying to align that portion of Rocque's map wirth today's. I see that the ref you give says: "When the grounds of Bethlem Hospital were extended in 1838 the line of Lambeth Road was diverted northward so that it met St. George's Road at an angle." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing 1746 1802 and 1813 makes me think that Prospect Row (1802) was along the line of Lambeth Road (1746) and then St George's Road was built further to the north and after 1813 straightened to head WNW rather than W. I think Bethlem Hospital was built very near or slightly to the west of D&D and the cupola was in the same location as the IWM cupola now. If so, the D&D was slightly east of the IWM cupola and well within the present GMHP. The location is set back to the south from the present St George's Road in the same way as IWM is. Thincat (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks likely. Do you have the joining sections of that 1802 map? I think that might help decide the matter. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The four maps around D&D are R6C3,R6C4, R7C3 and R7C4. The NSEW navigation doesn't work between the map sections.Thincat (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that about the navigation. Thanks for those links. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, it seems that the chapel marked on the 1813 map, on St.George's Road, seems to be where Notre Dame R.C. Girls School is today, on the corner of Gladstone Street (although the school dates only from 1855). This would place D&D back up St. George's Road, on the other side of the road - in the North West corner of the original Bethlem Hospital plot. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Garden Row, West Square and Brooks Street (now Brook Drive) are in the same positions in 1813 as now. My 6.5" to a mile street atlas shows a path running down the eastern edge of GMHP which I think is this so that might be Nursery Place on the 1813 map. Now, in the reference I gave above[1] there is a footnote "When the grounds of Bethlem Hospital were extended in 1838 the line of Lambeth Road was diverted northward so that it met St. George's Road at an angle". I think this is a mistake. It looks to me that it was St. George's Road that was diverted north to meet Lambeth Road at an angle. A bend to the left heading west was changed to a slight curve right towards the NW. Anyway I still think the D&D location was in what is now Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park but maybe in the northwest of it contrary to what I suggested earlier. That's good enough for me so I'm now going to stop investigating. If you discover anything more I'd be interested to hear. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just added a map, cropped from Rocque's full map of London. I've put it with the St George's Spaw section because that name is more prominent on the map. This reproduction is fuzzier than MotCo's but it seems easier to work with for now. To locate the tavern exactly, I reckon we might take a perpendicular from the end of Walnut Tree Walk, as I suppose that hasn't moved. Warden (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent on both points. The local detail isn't so good as in 1746 but it does give a fine overview of Southwark and the layout at that time. St George's Fields show up well. Also, I had tried to get an image for the "Spaw" but hadn't found anything. I was amazed how much has been written and was online about the D & D, illustrations as well. In particular Ida Darlington's "Survey" is very thorough and recent enough to have been researched much better that the earlier historians who could be more colourful, however. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the map with the red ring, even if a bit blurry, is an excellent addition. All we need to do now is agree where that location translates to in today's landscape. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I have removed an image, File:Labour in vain, or Fatty in Distress.jpg (which I had previously included myself) because it seems unnecessary. It shows the Dog and Duck in the background. The other nearby image of the interior looks to me to say 1769 on it but I have found two sources saying it is 1789 and that is likely because the place looks as if it is after the Hedgers' "improvements". My original idea was to have a "before" of 1769 and an "after" of 1783 but this idea obviously collapses. There is also a clipping from a gazetteer File:Edinburgh Gazetteer - Dog and Duck.jpg which I uploaded but never found a good place to put it in the article. I have probably finished making any substantive edits so I won't be in anyone's way who wants to make more changes. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Thincat. You've turned up some great material - I especially like the picture of the grand interior and the theatrical quote. You should share in the DYK credit, as and when it arrives. Warden (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, make sure you leave me out - wouldn't want any link to "the riff-raff and scum of the town"! lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Congrats

[edit]

Well done all who took part in brewing up a worthy DYK on this interesting pub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. We've got quite a good team together for this and there's still plenty more to do. It's unusual to have such good collaboration, in my experience, so I favour pushing on to get this article up to featured status and then we can showcase it again on the front page. Warden (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whores and rogues

[edit]

The DYK hook generated an interesting discussion at WP:ERRORS. That page doesn't seem to be archived so I repeat it here as a record in case the issue recurs. Warden (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Regarding the link for the Dog and Duck, is "whore" really the appropriate word to use? The article itself uses it as part of a quote, which is fine, but that context is missing on the main page. Wouldn't a non-pejorative term like "prostitute" or "sex worker" be more in line with WP:NPOV?Civis mundi sum (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading "whore" as prostitute (and it still is the dominant term for such names as the Whore of Babylon) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about whether people understand the meaning. The problem is that it's a pejorative term. We could put "nigger" on the main page and everyone would understand it means black people, but that doesn't make it OK. Civis mundi sum (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you really comparing "whore" to "nigger"? I have yet to meet anyone who would take more offense to the first rather than the last, particularly since we have terms such as "attention whore" which are in common usage. That being said, one need simply put the terms in quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I am! The principle is the same, if not the degree. Your "attention whore" example is a perfect example of what I mean, as you might have noticed that the term is not exactly a compliment. Wikipedia should not be supporting the use of derogatory language in relation to sex workers. Civis mundi sum (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Better, as the word is now placed in its proper context. I'm glad to see I was able to educate you on this matter, Crisco. Civis mundi sum (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Educate smeducate. If you think the sense of "whore" is nearly the same as "nigger", you need to learn about degrees. That both are negative is not nearly enough. Would you say Ted Bundy = Osama Bin Laden = Hitler = a jaywalker?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Straw man Crisco. Both words are derogatory and carry the ability to dehumanise their targets. This is the principle that matters. Seriously, go take a freshman woman's studies class or something, as it will do much to cure your obvious lack of awareness of male privilege. Civis mundi sum (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Took women's studies, passed it with flying colours. That doesn't mean I agree with whitewashing historical items with modern sensabilities (should I rewrite Snow White to have her rescuing the dwarves from an evil king, then pass it off as the original story?). As for the use of the word "whore" versus "prostitute" (or "sex worker"): I would certainly not use it in a modern context, but this hook is not in a modern context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WRONG. The article itself, by using quotes from contemporary sources, placed the word in its historical context, but no such context was apparent in the DYK line in its original, unquoted formulation. The derogatory word was effectively being used in "a modern context", which was wrong and inappropriate. Civis mundi sum (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:EUPHEMISM, "Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate." The phrase "whores and rogues" was used by a respectable alderman sitting in judgement at the licensing hearing and was meant quite literally. A euphemistic neologism such as sex worker would be quite anachronistic and inappropriate. Warden (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. That's a lot more polite then what I was about to write. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The DYK line previously did not make clear that it was quoting the alderman. The use was therefore inappropriate. Wikipedia has long had a problem with a disproportionately male editor base, and your cavalier, socially irresponsible disregard for the concerns of historically disadvantaged groups is a prime example of why WP has such problems attracting female editors. Civis mundi sum (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog_and_Duck,_St_George%27s_Fields&oldid=1206998185"