Talk:River Tyburn

inappropriate link: Pictures external link

The "Pictures of the River Tyburn" link is for Tyburn Brook--the narrative refers to exploring the River Westbourne several times--yet the article says specifically NOT to confuse the two, and the article is about the one that is NOT part of the Westbourne.Lamabillybob (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Motmit (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Antique shop claim

There doesn't seem to be any source that says the antique shop's claim is false so I don't think this opinion should be included per WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, I would suggest that an underground stream in this particular spot is extremely unlikely to be anything else. The water is probably clean for two reasons: firstly it flows downhill and joins the sewer at Mayfair a little further downstream [1]; secondly the river flows directly into the Thames at Vauxhall Bridge. Although raw sewage does occassionally enter the Thames I don't believe it's normal practice.[2] I don't know a lot about this but I imagine the river could be part of the sewage network, as a storm drain for example, without actually containing any raw sewage. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, this is ridiculous. The onus is on the antique shop to back up its extraordinary claim, not us. Possibly this whole bit should be removed from the article as any shop could make such a claim. Especially as the linked sources do state that the Tyburn is linked to sewers. Donama (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous. There are tourist guides that make the same claim so there's no shortage of reliable sources. Strictly speaking we don't need proof of the claim, only to reflect the reliable sources. I think common sense can also be applied. Is it really likely that there's a second, unrelated underground stream that flows at exactly the location of the Tyburn? Given that the river has a direct outlet into the Thames, is it really likely that it contains raw sewage, even if that was the case in a less hygienic age? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 07:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

still this nonsense in the article. English WP is the only to believe it. How can an open ditch be part of a water system that would be linked with sewers and stormwater drain, but then not flood the shop after rain, not stink and not have silted water? Live fish, hu? They do a great job to attract tourists and mislead guidebooks, but WP should only rely on real facts! 47.71.37.1 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)