File talk:Heusden grenspaal annex schandpaal.jpg

This is a pillory. See here and of course, the original and correct name of the file. --Foroa (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is not a pillory. As the link you give clearly says:Het is een paal van het voormalige waterschap De Hoge Maasdijk. (translation: It is a pole of the former water board "De Hoge Maasdijk".) Water boards were not responsible for pillory's. Also, the link says it was renovated in 1992. Since it is clearly visible the iron ring is part of the newer bottom part of the pole, and possibly added during this renovation. LeeGer (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly set where it is now as an example of a pillory. Wheter this is historically correct or not, is irrelevant. The iron ring that was perhaps (and very likely) later added, makes it a pillory - Quistnix (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether this is historically correct or not is very relevant. The idea that eveything turns into a pillory just by adding a metal ring, that is just plain stupid.

1. The ring was added in 1992, long after pillories were used in the Netherlands.

2. For what purpose the ring was added in 1992 is unknown. That it was added for use as a pillory however seems extremely unlikely

3. The borderstone was a borderstone for a waterboard, who had nothing to do with pillories.

4. The borderstone stands outside the old city near a river, while pillories stood in towncenters, on crossroads and other busy places.

5. A similar borderstone elsewhere in the municipality is mentioned in the monumentregister as a borderstone, not a pillory.

6. The monumentregister does not mention a pillory, which it certainly would do if it really was a pillory.

7. The height of the metal ring on the borderstone makes it unlikely it was intended as an example of a pillory.

8. There is no proof anywhere that the ring was intended as a pillory. This is just an assumption of users Quistnix and Foroa based on a blog of someone who took a picture of the borderstone.

Wikipedia is supposed to describe history, not to change it. LeeGer (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This picture has been uploaded and documented by a user under a certain name. We don't change the name or description unless we have an agreement of the author or when it is proven to be downright misleading. Making all sorts of hypothesises doesn't change those facts. As a minimum of courtesy, the downloaders' intentions are to be respected and additional arguments can be added in the text. And frankly, I see no reason why one would, during the restoration, falsify history by adding such a ring, just for the fun of it ? --Foroa (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given more than enough proof why the name is misleading. And you are right. Why the ring was added we don't know, but you have to agree that it is extremely unlikely that this borderstone ever functioned as a pillory. So best not to keep calling it that. LeeGer (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What's needed here is a reliable source supporting either pillory or borderstone. Otherwise the dispute can't be resolved. The blog reference is not a reliable source. A reference from an official area website, or an area newspaper website, etc, is what's required. In the absence of a reliable ref, the alternatives are to keep it as it is with the dispute notation in place, or to reach consensus on a neutral name. INeverCry 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have a photograph of a similar borderstone on my mobile phone. Just can't get it uploaded as linking it to this laptop won't work. It's exactly the same kind of pole, with the same coat of arms and the same year. This one is listed on the goverment monumentregister as a borderstone. See here (dutch). LeeGer (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a borderstone or other marker of some sort. This blog shows a number of marker stones in the area, including this photo of a virtually identical marker (without a ring). So, the ring was presumably a later addition, to serve a second purpose -- the real question is when it was added. If it is indeed old, it would certainly appear to be a form of pillory, sort of like a Scottish joug. You wouldn't need a lock for anything non-human. That above-mentioned blog also has this photo, which shows that the pole is right on the bank of a river, so anyone held there would be in full view of river travelers -- makes some sense. The big question is what the pole looked like prior to its 1992 renovation -- the bottom part of the pole does look to be rebuilt, which includes the section the ring is in -- it is inscribed "renovated 1992" right around the ring. If this was added at the time, then it is a merely a modern recreation of what a pillory might have looked like, and not a real, old pillory. It's hard to imagine that someone restoring a pole would add a feature like that, but it's not impossible. I don't think the title is out of line, though perhaps it should be relabeled to indicate its dual use (primarily a markerstone) but without knowing what the pole looked like before its restoration, you can't definitively state that it's an authentic pillory. It would be best to note the uncertainty surrounding when the ring was added, and the possibility it is a modern addition, unless some other documentation can be found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Next to the question of the date the ring was added, the main question of course is for what purpose the ring was added. As the use as a pillory is nothing more than an assumption that is not confirmed by any reliable source. Which is very strange for something as historically relevant as a pillory. And because of that, the assumption that it was added for a different reason is much more likely. which leads to the conclusion that calling it a pillory is wrong. LeeGer (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Use as a pillory is the most likely explanation, honestly. It looks pretty similar to other pole-based pillories. It's speculation, sure, but it is probably the best guess. If it's truly always been there, anyways. Is there much documentation out there on this post in general? Not knowing Dutch makes it kinda hard to search :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficult indeed to conclude one way or another. It doesn't look as if pillories get much attention in the Netherlands, at least by google search to schandpaal and the looks of the contents of Category:pillories in the Netherlands. --Foroa (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As it is speculation and guessing, the name should be changed and the category for pillories should be removed until there are reliable sources that say otherwise. The fact that there aren't many pillories does not change that. LeeGer (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh... a search on schaandpaal turns up a number of similar pillory poles in Belgium and the Netherlands. Such as here, here, here, here, here, or here. I think a description of pillory is appropriate, and the category, though the description should note the possibility that it's a modern recreation, and note that pillory is the "best guess" or something like that. Completely ignoring the ring and assuming it's modern is a much worse solution, in my opinion. Just don't make the description sound definitive -- note the uncertainty. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there probably are pillories in Belgium and holland. But this is not a pillory, it is a waterboard borderstone. That fact is also supported by reliable sources like the monumentregister of our dutch government. The suggestion that it might be a pillory is not. there are no reliable sources for it anywhere. There isn't even one reliable source that even suggests that it might have been a pillory. So, a picture of the borderstone should not mention the word pillory at all, unless someone has any reliable source that it is a pillory. Otherwise it is simply misleading. LeeGer (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not disputing that it is a waterboard borderstone. That fact should definitely be in the description, as that was obviously its original purpose. However there was a reason the ring was added, and that needs to be dealt with in the description as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, is this a photo of it pre-restoration? It is dated 1992. Does appear to mention the cuff at neck level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This link doesn't work. LeeGer (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. OK, this is an alternate link. It's not a great photo, to the point I can't tell if the restoration text is there or not. The pole looks to be in good shape, although I can't see the obvious difference in material between the top and bottom halves you can see nowadays. It is possible that was just after restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now we have a reliable source :-) As this is the website of Rijkswaterstaat. The text says: "A waterboard borderstone on fortified Heusden. This one also had a function as a pillory. Here one was aan de kaak gesteld." I don't know a proper translation for the last sentence. But it's a dutch saying about an oldfashioned name (kaak) for pillories. Now we just need a good name for the file. Heusden Grens & Schandpaal perhaps? LeeGer (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That works fine for me. Definitely a better description than just "schandpaal". The ampersand sometimes can be annoying in a title though due to HTML issues... Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is another photo; it also mentions the pillory usage. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This one says: "Át the text of the year of restoration an iron collar was added so that the borderstone could also be used as a pillory. Just as apparently happened in the past."

Which means this also is someonoe guessing why it was added. And the sentence does imply that the ring was added during restoration. LeeGer (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one is speculation too. But if it looks like a duck... ;-) The point being is that one looks to be independent speculation as the previous link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitching post?

After asking for advice at the village pump, someone suggested it is a typical ring for a hitching post. I had not thought of that myself, but use of the ring as a hitching post is, especially seen all the grass arount the borderstone, much more likely than a pillory. As it is not unusual in this area for people who own a single horse or goat, to let their animals graze somewhere on public land only held by a chain. Which is usually attached to a pin stuck in the ground. This could be a good reason to attach such a ring to this borderstone. LeeGer (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A hitching post ring is normally solid; it does not need to open, and does not need a lock. It would also be at the top of the pole, at least for a horse. Where would the key for the lock be? Can't imagine it would be left there for general use. I don't see the hitching post idea, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, as the ring is mostlikely added in 1992, a hitching post would preferably have a lock to prevent the theft of the animal that was hitched there. I don't say it was a hitching post for certain, but it is a more plausible explanation than the story of a pillory. And the ring at the top of the pole wouldn't be very practical. LeeGer (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You would use a much, much newer style of lock than that if it's truly for a modern usage. And you would not need a lock on the ring itself. What are you basing your "most likely added in 1992" opinion on? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It says so on the borderstone itself. The lower part of the stone is newly added, and as you can see here a borderstone like this normally does not have a metal ring. The ring being added as a pillory is just a wild guess. LeeGer (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It says it was renovated in 1992. Normally, renovations do not add stuff like that -- they are trying to return something to the way it was. The lower portion was clearly rebuilt, yes, but presumably the marker was originally that tall. The cuff and lock is very old, so you are suggesting they took that from somewhere else and added it. I just don't see that as likely. That is at least as speculative as the pillory guess. It is of course possible it was added then, but it's nowhere near likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wonder how the bordstone looked like, or how tall it was, before restoration please look here. LeeGer (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I already linked to that photo; that is clearly a similar marking stone but not the same one. That photo is dated from 2006. So yes, the marker in question obviously had a purpose other than a pillory as well, but it's entirely possible that due to its location on the bank of the river, the cuff was added to serve double duty as a pillory. The best info would be photos or other information on this marker in particular prior to the renovation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No it did not have a "purpose other than a pillory as well", it had a other purpose period. It is a waterboard borderstone. I believe I have told you that about a dozen times by now. And I also gave you reliable sources for that. So why you keep ignorig the fact that it is a waterboard borderstone I don't know. LeeGer (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be very simple. The pole on the picture is a waterboard borderstone. That is supported by the dutch monumentregister. So we should name the file grenspaal (or borderstone). Why? Because that is what the thing is. If you or someone stick to your opinion that it was a pillory as well? Fine bring us some (reliable) sources for that, and we can call it a grenspaal/schandpaal, but if you can't find those sources, we just keep calling it a grenspaal/borderstone. LeeGer (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The reliable source is the photo itself. You can't say the ring does not exist. I can agree that grenspaal should be in the title and description, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say the ring doesn't exist? That's a false accusation. I don't deny the ring exists. But what doesn't exist is any reliable source that it ever served, or was intended as a pillory. So, that should be removed from the name, and the category, until one can come up with that source. As the current name is a product of guessing and speculation, and that should not be acceptable for any serious encyclopedia. LeeGer (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I consider a photograph a reliable source of its existence. We don't need anything more to discuss the likelihood of its being there for pillory purposes, because it's certainly not there for borderstone purposes. Probably should not definitively state that it was always that way, but the description can be worded to indicate the lack of absolute certainty. I can understand not liking that the description is ignoring its obvious borderstone purpose, but I cannot understand pretending the ring is not there, and not mentioning it in the description or giving a most likely reason for its being there at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Again those false accusations, why? Can't you discuss something without accusing others of something they never did or said? I NEVER said the ring doesn't exist, and if you want to mention that it has a metal ring? Fine be my guest. But for what reason the ring was added is unknown, and because of that, it should not be named or categorized as a pillory before reliable sources can confirm that. Until then, it is a just metal ring and nothing more. LeeGer (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to seem to accuse you of something. The ring exists, and has a separate purpose. The *by far* most likely purpose is as a pillory. I don't see why we can't say that -- I guess we just have a different opinion on how likely it is. There are multiple sources out there (I linked a couple in the previous section) which basically say the same. Lack of a rock-solid source should not prevent common sense -- the ring was an additional feature, so the pole served a dual purpose. It's more than a ring; it's a cuff with a lock. There aren't too many purposes that type of thing served, and there are many similar examples of a cuff on a pole which are undoubtedly pillories. I can't see any other rational explanation, and the pillory explanation is repeated in several places and does seem to be everbody's best guess on the matter. If you truly believe that the ring was only added in 1992, I can understand your position more, but I just don't see that as likely -- it was a marker stone which happened to be a convenient place to also serve as a pillory, to me. All the similar borderstones don't have the ring, so there is something different about this one. I can understand labeling the pillory portion as being a logical guess rather than being documented, but I can't agree with taking it out of the pillory category. Yes, it was a marker stone first, and the description should say that. But it should also include information about the cuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)