Talk:Sean's Bar

Travel Guide?

Referring to: "According to Frommer's travel guide, the bar holds records of every owner since its inception" as it's currently in the article: can a travel guide really be acceptable as a source? They're invested in easy to digest stories, not necessarily historic accuracy. Not even their own website claims that. 188.98.255.110 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seán's Bar

OK, if it is the oldest pub in Ireland dating to 900AD, what was it called before Seán's Bar? As you know Seán as a name was brought to Ireland by the Normans from 1167/68/69 in the form of the Norman-French 'Jehan'. Unless of course this is 'Sean', as in 'old'? Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Sean's father's Bar?? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Methinks, such stories belong more in the bar than an encylopedia... Sergeirichard (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the oldest?

The link used to state that Seans is in fact not the oldest bar in Ireland is an april fools joke and cannot be used to verify anything. For reference http://www.irelandlogue.com/craic/seans-bar-not-actually-the-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html Mremeralddragon (Talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (GMT)

I think the date on the article is a giveaway, no? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidence?

Is there any evidence, at all, that this isn't a spoof? The certificate could also be a spoof - has anyone seen this entry in a Guinness World Records book? It's not mentioned in the current Guinness World Records website. No scholarly evidence beyond tongue-in-cheek tourist references. This article may end up being deleted if we can't find something solid. --HighKing (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems really flimsy. The Guinness Certificate apparently posted in the bar attributes the claim to the bar itself. I can't find any scholarly sources that support any of the claims. Everything I can find comes back to travel guides accepting the bar's story. I don't think the article needs to be deleted, per se, but I'm removing some claims. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 19:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The bar's whole story stinks, frankly. The idea that it could date back to 900 AD is an extraordinary claim that demands hard evidence, but none seems to be forthcoming. Where are the historical records that mention it? Where are these "antique coins" that were found there? Why are there no sources from the National Museum that say anything about it, if it was their researchers who confirmed the bar's age? This article posted above is just an April Fool's Day spoof, but it's probably closer to the truth than anything on the wiki page. Zacwill (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zacwill: I share your skepticism. I’d like to think that I’ve done a reasonably decent job this year last year of hewing the article down to not-absurd statements, but I see that the sentence about the coins still needs an in-line citation. I think its current (vexing) level of ambiguity matches news coverage correctly, but it should be confirmed. If you have other specific suggestions for improvements, don’t hold back! Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article's definitely looking a lot better now that the more outrageous claims aren't accepted uncritically. The National Museum has a contact form on their website that can be used to make enquries, I think I might write in to ask if they can shed any light on this and if they actually have anything related to this bar in their collection. Watch this space. Zacwill (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've had an email back from the museum. This is what the duty officer for the Irish antiquities division has to say:

“ Thank you for your query. I would need more information about the described tenth-century finds from the site (NMI Registration numbers, for example, or an excavation license number) to confirm if they form a part of the collections of the National Museum of Ireland.

The NMI Numismatics collection contains an assemblage of thirty seventeenth-century tavern tokens from Athlone, County Westmeath, however, which are similar in appearance to coins and were used in taverns or pubs to trade for drinks in the past.

The building occupied by Sean’s Bar on 13 Main Street, Athlone, County Westmeath is listed in Record of Monuments and Places by the National Monuments Service as RMP WM029-042087, Inn, where it is described as follows:

WM029-042087-

Class: Inn

Townland: ATHLONE AND BIGMEADOW

Scheduled for inclusion in the next revision of the RMP: No

Description: 'Sean's Bar' was originally a two storey high building with thick walls, an additional third storey in brick was added later. Preserved on the premises is a section of wattle partition removed from a first floor wall. This could be of seventeenth century date but it is not securely dated (Bradley et. al. 1985, 28). Claims to have a documented history of all its innkeepers since 1600.

And also as RMP WM029-042086, Architectural Feature, described as follows:

WM029-042086-

Class: Architectural feature

Townland: ATHLONE AND BIGMEADOW

Scheduled for inclusion in the next revision of the RMP: Yes

Description: On the premises of Sean's Bar (WM029-042086-), 13 Main Street, is a late medieval stone built fireplace from a house on an island in Lough Ree (Bradley et. al. 1985, 28).

The building is listed on the National Inventory of Architechtural Heritage (Reg. No. 15000331): https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/15000331/seans-bar-shines-hairdressers-11-13-main-street-athlone-and-bigmeadow-athlone-county-westmeath

I hope that helps to answer your query.

”

It seems that the artifacts referred to in the article—the coins, or rather tavern tokens, and the wattle-work wall—are genuine, but are of early modern rather than medieval date. The bar itself was built c. 1725 according to the last source provided by the duty officer, and was recorded as "The Three Blackamoor Heads" in 1738. It may contain the fabric of earlier buildings, however, as evidenced by the wattle-work, which seems to date from the 17th century (although it isn't securely dated). It'd be nice if we could track down the source referred to as "Bradley" in order to get more information on this, but I haven't been able to.

In conclusion, the bar's story isn't quite as bogus as I thought it might be, but is still only half true. The bar's definitely old, but not that old – there's evidence to suggest that it was around in the 17th century, but nothing I've seen indicates that it's any older than that. Zacwill (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zacwill. "Bradley et al 1985" is Bradley, J., Halpin, A., and King, H. 1985 Urban Archaeological Survey for County Westmeath. (Office of Public Works; Dublin). "Bradley" is John Bradley. "Et al" are Andrew Halpin and Heather King. Bradley's unit compiled many of the archaeological inventories which were used as a basis for the RMP and RPS entries. The Urban Archaeological Survey for County Westmeath was conducted in 1985. See Surveying Our Heritage (NMS; 2013; ppS28-S30). Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Huzzah, Zacwill, and thanks, Guliolopez! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Zacwill and Guliolopez, I just did a little rejiggering that captures the research above to the best of my understanding. The case against an AD 900 establishment seems too strong now for us to be beating around the bush. The lead sentence is probably the boldest change: I feel like it’s best that we’re upfront about why the reader has probably come to this silly article, but I want to flag the change in case you think it could or should be more conservative. Obviously feel free to tinker with the wording or opine here, whichever is easier. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 23:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JamesLucas. Generally looks good. However, I've tweaked slightly to temper potential concerns relative to MOS:CLAIM. While I've left the phrase "in actuality" in place, I wonder whether (strictly) this is valid or needed. While I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck between giving attention to the claims (and balancing with the available evidence), we need to be careful that the article doesn't read as an "attack page" focused on the claims. ("John says X, Jack says Y" should suffice. The project shouldn't necessarily appear to side with either). Otherwise I'm reminded of the Kyteler's Inn article. And its progression from where it was to where it is now. Guliolopez (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I like your edits, and I agree that the article should not feel like an attack on the pub. I hope it doesn’t feel that way because, policy concerns aside, if you can’t take pride in telling a whopper at a pub, where can you? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sean's Bar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404181153/http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html to http://www.irelandlogue.com/best-of/seans-bar-athlone-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Boy George

Referring to: "According to Frommer's travel guide, the bar holds records of every owner since its inception, including when Boy George owned it briefly in 1987." According to this interview given by a representative of the pub, Boy George was not an owner. It started as an April Fool's joke that someone put on the internet and it stuck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTn89ivOBVI&feature=youtu.be&t=320 (see 5:20) --2601:204:100:4076:FD05:D863:F983:6F9A (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Resolved - Sorted. Guliolopez (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Update. While an anon user recently (Aug 2022) re-added the "Boy George" rumour/claim, I have (re)removed it. As noted above, and based on several sources (including directly from representatives of the pub in video and in print), this claim is not true or verifiable. ("No, that was never true [..] That was an April Fools joke told by somebody and it went all over the place. It's certainly not true.") Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Age (and sources) revisited

Following the above discussion of early 2021 (section titled #Evidence?), an effort was made to reflect the historical and archaeological sources (including the RMP (maintained by the NMS), NIAH (under Dept of Local Govt and Heritage), Bradley (under the OPW), etc). This was undertaken as it was felt that these sources were overlooked (or overridden) by the travelogue and travelguide sources (Fromers, Fodors, etc). In recent days, the attempted balance (to at least give "equal billing" to more reputable historical sources over those with a slightly different remit) was largely reverted. I have since restored some of the historical/archaeological sources. And I have removed others which seemed to be added in error. If other editors want to discuss how to best reflect the sources, then ideally we would do so here. As that, in essence, is what Article Talk pages are for. (To discuss how best to represent the sources. In particular where the sources don't fully align.) As per my note (above) of February 2021, I think the article (again) reflects the sources with some balance ("Source A says X, Source B says Y"). If others feel differently, then am happy to have the discussion. But removing all the historical sources (and only retaining the travelguide sources) wouldn't seem to be appropriate to me.... Guliolopez (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)