Jump to content


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


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 agree. Holborn was a river, then a street, and then an area around the street which became a Borough. In none of its manifestations has it ever been customary to characterise the western City of London as Holborn, and that knocks out Fleet Street and the Inner and Middle Temples.Chelseaboy 16:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To say "river Fleet, now subterranean but once flowing parallel to where Kingsway now stands" is not helpful. The river Fleet ran along what is now Farringdon Road, Farringdon Street and New Bridge Street, some distance from Kingsway.

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. (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

"the first time anyone saw a gorilla"[edit]

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)[reply]

Possible WP:COPYVIO[edit]

Much of the "History" section seems to be the same as an article in Covent Garden Magazine, here

  • Example from the magazine: The name Holborn is derived from a hamlet called Holebourne to the East which was established long before 1249, this name in turn is taken from the river Fleet, now subterraneous but it once flowed parallel to where Kingsway now stands. In the days when Holborn was a green oasis the Elizabethan herbalist John Gerard cultivated the land with much horticultural zeal. Here he was the first to catalogue over 1000 native species in a splendid prose tome which still exists to this day at the British Museum.
  • Example, Wikipedia: The name Holborn is derived from a hamlet called Holebourne to the East which was established long before 1249, this name in turn taken from the river Fleet, now subterranean but once flowing under Farringdon Road/ Farringdon Street. In the days when Holborn was a sub-urban, the Elizabethan herbalist John Gerard cultivated the land with much horticultural zeal. Here he was the first to catalogue over 1000 native species which is housed at the British Library .

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)[reply]

Deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the "Old Bourne"[edit]

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. (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Tony S[reply]

Good point. Changed to "below" Holborn Viaduct (and not forgetting that the land surface was built up there when the Metropolitan Railway was constructed) thereby allowing the deleted material, with its two references, to be reinstated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: my pre-metrication Ordnance Map (1:25000 sheet TQ 28/38, published 1971) has Temple Bar on the 50-foot contour, whereas the 25-foot contour crosses Farringdon Road just a few feet south of the Viaduct. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Tony S[reply]

The article states below Holborn Viaduct, in the valley of the Fleet River: the misread material and its citations restored accordingly. Please see WP:V regarding verifiable sources, which trump "you can see that it cannot be done." As it happens I was there last week (albeit going up the hill, east-to-west) and took the opportunity to check the point for myself. This is, of course, original research and of no value here. What counts is what can be checked by other editors from reliable, published sources. A good example would be the map I have cited above: any editor can check this and find that there is a 25 foot drop along the suggested course: not a torrent, but a perfectly viable flow in 600 or so yards. This makes three reliable sources. Any further deletion of cited material will seem like wilful vandalism. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 (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. (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S) (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nineteenth century traffic overpass and the embanked ground around it seems to be the cause of confusion, "Holborn Viaduct" replaced with "Holborn Bridge", as in the source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are confused by the various public works over the centuries. (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

Continuously deleting correct information replacing ill researched and ill-informed cited and irrelevant information is vandalism and has been reverted. (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

Thanks for re-inserting the material. I agree that the "Temple Bar" version is probably wrong and I will re-order the para to give more prominence to the "Fleet" version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. (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. (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

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. (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

John Stow, in his notable and historically valuable Survey of London, is the likely originator of the account, as the IP editor suggests, but that's the point of WP:V: the article isn't saying that there was this stream, it's reporting the various accounts of how Holborn got its name. This is a basic difference. While I'm here, should I add John Strype, the eighteenth century historian and map maker, who also reports the "Old Bourne" version? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed - we'll draw a line under this last edit of yours. Strype was relying on Stow - always a bad idea. (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

OK, no Strype. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

More here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily the BBC definitively requires the "/ˈhoʊbɚn/ HOE-bərn", so it has been reinstated. The Rough Guide version retained, with a brief historical note. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I mostly hear Hoebun and Holburn. Sometimes Holborn. Nothing in between. I don't think the Hoeburn, rather than Hoebun pronunciation is true RP, far more likely a symptom of the general late twentieth century fashion of avoiding the schwa. The same sort of phenomenon can be observed in the tendency to pronounce Avon as /eivon/ instead of the more traditional /eivən/ and even to make "Charlotte" rhyme with "dot". All original research I know, but considering the fact that sources exist for both, I suggest they both belong here. Do you have a url for the BBC ref? -- (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's a BBC print publication, but the URL for their "less formal" article is given. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, maybe some more detail would be good in order to make a ref possible. Does it have an ISBN for instance, or a publication date and place? Re IPA: the pronunciation in the cited source is a phonetic transcription but Wikipedia has its own consistent phonemic conventions laid out in WP:IPAEN, which are a little different and must be used throughout (see WP:MOSIPA), regardless of whether the article is written in GB or US English. Those conventions require that /oʊ/ be used throughout for the vowel sound heard in "know". An explanation of how these conventions are realised in individual languages is given in this article. If you look in the chart you'll see that RP /əʊ/ corresponds with Wikipedia's /oʊ/. No allowance is made for /əʊ/. A simple logical deduction (not original research) allows other conventions used in other dictionaries and guides to be rewritten to comply with MOS, regaredless of what the cited sources say. -- (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN etc all in the footnotes. I'd wouldn't want to change the text to something the source doesn't say—it's akin to changing a quote for a more convenient fit to an article—but I can see that clicking on the link and finding the symbol combination at the other end would be useful.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I must have missed them. I think the pronunciaton needs to be changed to comply with MOS. It's really akin to converting a source in miles to one in kilometres. But if you want to use an alternative phonetic convention you can write it in square brackets without using the linking template. Also, my interpretation of the "(r)" is that the BBC has no view about whether it's "burn" or "bun". -- (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there scope for using the WP-preferred format in the text, but using the accurate transcript from the source in the note—note [a] at the time of writing—at the end of the article? This would make the link work, without misrepresenting the source work where its link actually actually connects.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I agree a direct quotation should be just that. I wouldn't use any template though (the template is actually altering the quote by inserting "pronounced..."). Maybe a link to the mainspace International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA chart for English dialects articles. -- (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paved 1417?[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]