Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Flask, Highgate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Flask, Highgate

[edit]
(
)

The Flask, Highgate

  • ... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors must swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?
  • ALT1 ... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

  • This article has survived AfD and is long enough and new enough. The hook is suitably sourced, the image is appropriately licensed and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverted approval for more comment: Swearing on the Horns says that the ceremony only took place once, in 2007, and there doesnt' appear to be anything on the pub's website to imply it does the ceremony regularly. Can we have a source for the fact itself, not just the ritual existing? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: Actually, the first time was in 1826. See Ben Le Vay's Eccentric London: A Practical Guide to a Curious City p=21 And in 2010 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines: But is this at all a regular event still? The current hook states that, if I went there now, I would have to swear the oath. As far as I can tell, though, it's only done on special occasions, so I probably wouldn't even see it. If it's ongoing, we need a source for that, if it's not ongoing, the article and hook need changed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Darkness Shines: Well, that does mean the hook needs rewritten, but at least that can be sourced and the article fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation added. Although I feel that your approach may be unnecessarily pedantic and perhaps missing the spirit of the DYK section, I've revised the hook, removing the word "must". Edwardx (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite simply, I thought it sounded interesting, read the hook, looked at the article, followed the article to the page on the ritual - and only THEN discovered that it wasn't a daily or so event at the pub. Even as it stands, the article has no mention it's only once a year, which will lead readers to presume it happens there all the time, and that it would be quite likely that, should they wish, they could ask and do it upon arrial. The article still doesn't say that it's a yearly event, and so the hook and article are still highly misleading. I could possibly accept a slightly misleading hook if the article wasn't equally misleading. Also, for what is apparently a yearly event, an inordinate amount of space in the article is dedicated to it - if the Swearing on the Horns wasn't played up quite so much, the article wouldn't be long enough for DYK in the first place. I say this is either or even . Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking closely at the article in Ham&High, it does not state that the Swearing only takes place once a year, merely that it "has for the last 40 years been run by Hornsey Round Table". I have added to the article to reflect this. I have also added something about the interior to flesh out the article. As regards the hook, I don't believe it could now reasonably be argued that it is misleading with respect to the Swearing; of course, "terms and conditions apply", but we can't detail all of that in a hook! Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • - I think this is good to go. I disagree that there is an overemphasis on the horns, and now that the hook has been updated to reflect the source, I don't see any issues with any paraphrasing or other sources. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't actually have a source for when one can do so, how often one can, or the like. And it's written as if it constantly happens, when it doesn't. I still object. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It simply says 'for the last 40 years' (as part of a charity event) and seems as though WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail here, rather than a pedantic picking at this particular sentence. Unless you have an alternative to add? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Any other fact from the article? It's a pub from 1663 that hosted a Manorial court. It's not like nothing else is significant about it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well that's certainly an option. May I ask what it is about the subject matter that you object to? If the hook was about the ghost, would that also bother you? That's quite well referenced as well and would be very interesting. Or is it simply that section? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
As you ask: I saw this hook, and thought it sounded really interesting, as I'm interested in historical customs, and might be interested in seeing it while in London. But the more I investigated, the less I could find about when it happened. All we can say at present is that it does appear to happen sometimes, on indeterminate dates, and with very poor documentation. The hook, however, started as "vistiors must swear" - simply untrue, as far as I can tell, indeed, most won't even get the chance to, and those that want to likely need to donate to charity to participate. While the toning down to "visitors swear" is somewhat better, it doesn't even come near to dealing effectively with the massive uncertainty around this; surely when we're putting something on "Did you know...", we should at least know some basic facts about it ourselves? I did search their website, but couldn't find anything on there. (Also, the article seems to imply it's one of several in Highgate that participate in a charity Swearing on the Horns; if it could be shown it was unique in keeping up the tradition, that would definitely change my opinion.)
As for the ghost - I'd say that would be fine, although some phrasing like "it is claimed" in the hook should be used, as, y'know, we are an encyclopedia. Let's not go claiming ghost stories are real on our main page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm voting for ghost. The creators want to suggest a good hook? It is only one of a few pubs who do the ritual. I disagree in the strongest terms that this means the suggested hook is somehow misleading, but I think a ghost hook is a compromise. (And yes, as someone who writes extensively about paranormal subjects, I am aware we are an encyclopedia) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know, I just don't want to say "ghost is good" and then start a new argument immediately thereafter because I didn't say "but make it's clear it's claimed". Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm confused. It seems to me that the above discussion is saying that a hook should be created about a ghost, and that the current ALT1 hook is being objected to by Adam. Is this true? If so, the tick from March 25 should be superseded by some other icon, ALT1 struck, and a post made to the nominator's talk page that a new hook is needed. Thanks. (Not to confuse issues further, but I rather like the idea of William Hogarth and Karl Marx being claimed as past customers. And I was wondering whether an approach along the lines of adding the phrase like "for charity" or "supporting a charity" after "visitors" in ALT1 might address Adam's concerns there. [The latter, "supporting a charity", takes the hook right up to the 200-character max.]) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It was my understanding from the 'thank you's' from the nominator that they were well aware of what was going on here. I've struck the ALT1 (although you could've done that too, a brief reading of this makes it pretty clear). You've put up the symbol so everyone should now be aware, even if they are not currently part of the situation. I'll leave an extra comment on the creator's page just to be safe. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I have not been monitoring this conversation but see nothing wrong with either of the two original hooks. Does anyone really think that people will be misled into visiting this pub and then be disappointed that the ritual is not taking place on that day? This is clearly something that happens on a regular but not frequent basis as a sort of special occasion and there is evidence for that in the sources. I am not in favour of ghosts or famous customers as every pub I have every been in claims both. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It just boils down to: "Can we tell how often it happens?" - No. "Do I think that's ok?" - No.
Not my view at all but a compromise by picking something equally interesting seemed like the best idea so this doesn't turn into a never-ending argument because there's no darned source that says it and it doesn't look like there'll be budging over the point. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(Find a source saying how often and I'm sure this will be fine but I couldn't and so I couldn't offer reassurances) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What about:

... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors were once asked to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?

I have a source which I will add shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Walford's Old and new London (1892) specifically mentions that The Flask was one of the pubs that participates, even stating that they used ram's horns there rather than stags horns. The contents of the ritual vary slightly according to the source used but I have used a recent Brewer's as the most reliable source. Is this good enough to go with the amended original hook? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Quote: "the "Gate House," had stag-horns, as had also the "Mitre," the " Green Dragon," the "Bell," the " Rose and Crown," the "Bull," the "Wrestlers," the "Lord Nelson," the " Duke of Wellington," the "Crown," and the " Duke's Head." Bullocks' horns were used at the "Red Lion" and "Sun," and ramshorns at the " Coach and Horses," the "Castle," the " Red Lion," the "Coopers' Arms," the " Fox and Hounds," the "Flask," and the "Angel." At each of the above houses the horns were mounted on a stick, to serve in the mock ceremonial when required."

Philafrenzy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite happy with "once". It's just the modern persistence that seems erratic. Indeed, "were once (and sometimes still are) asked..." seem quite sourced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yay! Does that mean we can stick a big fat tick on it now? (It's 195 characters so that seems ok) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's do it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to this one please: "that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors were once asked to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?" It's pithier. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't comment sooner, as I was too busy with "real" work. I can live with Philafrenzy's revised wording, although I would have preferred the original hook with "can" instead of "must". It is curious that these pedantic objections about a claimed paucity of evidence come from someone who is seemingly happy to substitute a ghost hook, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.Edwardx (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I overlooked that swear had dropped out somewhere. Can we have:
"that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors were once asked to swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?" Philafrenzy (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
As the custom continues in Highgate into the present (and coincidentally, I was talking earlier this evening to two London brewers, one of whom swore on the horns last year at the Bull in Highgate, see http://thebullhighgate.co.uk/events.php?month=8&year=2013 and https://twitter.com/Bull_Highgate/status/362223745684873216), my preference would be for:

ALT2 ... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors can swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both?

... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they can kiss the mistress, unless they prefer the maid or can kiss both? Stronger? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
But that wording would take us back to ALT1 above. I've softened it further with the addition of "can". ALT2 should satisfy everyone. Edwardx (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Suits me. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
That gets right back to the problems of before. We don't know when it happens in the present day, but "can" implies "if I walk in, I can do it." If we can't say when they can, we can't say they "can". Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you support:
ALT3 ... that at The Flask, Highgate (pictured), visitors were once asked to swear to drink only strong beer, and not to kiss the maid if they could kiss the mistress, unless they preferred the maid or could kiss both? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, yes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Then let's use it as long as others agree. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm fine with Philafrenzy's wording, which I've just renamed as ALT3 Edwardx (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we close this now since there appears to be consensus? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT3 hook is approved and supported by sources, and is okay with the article creators. Article is 2340 prose characters, and was nominated five days after it was created. Rest of approval per original review by Cwmhiraeth. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Flask,_Highgate&oldid=602397663"