Talk:Lant

Is this real?

I mean come on. Urine as mouthwash? Sounds a little fishy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan10la (talk • contribs)

• The you should probably check the cited references. --Dystopos (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations rquired

The following request has been moved here from Dystopos's talk page to integrate the discussion.

Hello. Your article Lant has had a {{No footnotes}} template since 2010, meaning "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations." Perhaps you could respond, please, to identify the article's references more precisely. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The following reply has been moved here from O'Dea's talk page to integrate the discussion.

The references cover the same scope of information and specific quotes are clearly cited in the body of the article. I removed the template. Other editors are welcome to make formatting improvements if they think it is important to readers. --Dystopos (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The embedding of links to references within an article are not mere "formatting improvements" as you call them: formatting merely adjusts the appearance of the article. The {{No footnotes}} template calls for a necessary improvement, a reasonable request with which I agree, so I have restored the template as it has not been answered.

The more precise citations called for creates a referential precision that is necessary for anyone wishing to see which work supports which statement in the article; for now, that necessary mechanism is absent. Precise citations improve the credibility of the article and allow anyone to know where to verify a statement, or to read more about that aspect of the article. That is how references work, which is why the {{No footnotes}} template exists.

The reason I went to the trouble of finding out who added the references to the article is that I have no access to the works cited, whereas your use of these references suggests that you do. And even if I did have the works cited, I do not have the page numbers to refer to, so finding the alleged citations would be a very time-consuming burden; needles in haystacks come to mind.

The "specific quotes clearly cited" that you refer to are now in the article only because I restored them to the article yesterday after they were removed in 2007; they had been missing for five years. Even so, the two quotations do not reveal where in the cited works they occur, and the remaining four works listed in the references section remain imprecisely cited. It would bring the article you created up to a basic standard of quality if you responded to the request that was added two years ago. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's quite enough there for you or anyone else to tackle whatever job you think needs to be done. In my editorial opinion the cited quotations and list of references are adequate. The dictionaries all provide similar definitions and the articles support the range of uses for lant. Have at it. --Dystopos (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Have at it? Impossible. No libraries anywhere near me possess those works in their collections whereas you have, apparently, had access to them. In addition, as I pointed out before, if I did have those works, I would have to wade through them from start to finish, an unreasonable burden, since you did not cite page numbers. Your reluctance to care about your own article is unedifying. — O'Dea (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I care. Which is why I provided references to begin with. Most folk don't require page citations to find dictionary entries. --Dystopos (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response that you "provided references" dodges the repeatedly stated issue that they were not properly done, as indicated by the inline references template. — O'Dea (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary?

This entry is more dictionary than encyclopedia. Perhaps we should move it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful use as ale flavorant, possibly comedic myth

See this Reddit thread. Most citations seem to be from comedic or otherwise not-so-straight sources, and the only known instance of "lanted ale" cited earnestly is by a man who ought to have known it being used but only heard indirectly. At best, as far as I can see "lanting" of ale may have been a rare, local thing and not widespread at any period. It's a spurious claim and I tagged the text as dubious because of it.--Sıgehelmus (Tωlk) 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We deleted the claim but left in the quote ... perhaps they should have both gone together. —Soap— 13:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional historical documentary evidence for use of urine as ale flavoring

I was browsing a glossary published in 1811 where I came across the term "Land, or Lant" defined as "urine; to lant or leint ale, to put urine in it to make it strong." Horrified and mystified in equal measure, I started googling the term and found myself here. So there is at least one completely sober book that affirms this practice, and you can access it on Google Books. The book I was looking at is Francis Grose, A Provincial Glossary with a Collection of Local Proverbs and Popular Superstitions (London: Edward Jeffery, 1811). The term is on page 103 in that edition, the scan accessible online here, though the page numbers were written in by hand at some point. I see there is an even earlier edition going back to 1787, accessible here. That one does not have page numbers, but the words are organized alphabetically, so it is not hard to find! Juxian (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

A sober book of "Popular Superstitions"? WP:PUS

Riventree (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This sounds a little suspissious to me as well. Peeple have tried many things to cure what ales them .... but we're claiming something very spissific. a dictionary entry is no proof of practice, after all. i have more puns, but i think i can hold it for now. —Soap— 13:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Chemistry

It would be interesting to have more information about the (bio?)chemical processes which convert urine into lant. There's mention of fermentation in the introduction but no details of what is fermented by which fermentation agent nor which products are created, although the next paragraph does imply one with "Because of its ammonium content". 92.3.210.86 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

See urea, the primary compound for excretion of nitrogen in humans, and urease, an enzyme produced by both plants and bacteria, which hydrolizes urea to ammonia and carbon dioxide.

Riventree (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)