Talk:Epsom riot

The name of the camp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Schrocat changed the capital c in "Woodcote Camp" to a lower case c because "Woodcote Camp" was not its official name. If someone has the source we should I think put the official name in ,whatever it is. Does anyone have the source? Spinney Hill (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be in there if it can be linked to a reliable and high quality source. None of the material I came across when writing the article had an official title, but a variety of informal names were used (with the word "camp" capitalised and uncapitalised according to the wishes of the author, rather than because it was the official name of the camp). - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course an informal name can be used by most people and becpomes the name thereby. Nobody much knows what the "Gravelly Hill Interchange" is but most British drivers have heard of "Spagetti Junction." Most cricketers and cricket watchers refer to the old name of the Oval or the Kennington Oval rather than the official "Kia Oval" so "The Oval" is still its name. I still think "Woodcote Camp" is correct. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS suggests otherwise - and it should never be capitalised when used in the form "at the camp's hospital". (Your two examples are straw men, when even the "current" informal name is not used consistently, with both Woodcote and Woodcote Park both being used; I'm also unconvinced that your two examples of extant common names bear any resemblance to a temporary military camp that closed down a century ago.) - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Woodcote Park Camp, or Woodcote Park Convalescent Camp, are the correct proper common names. Camp should be capitalised. Polyamorph (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. It can't have two "proper names". It has one military designation that I can't find at the moment and several shorter common names, none of which are the "proper names". How third parties use capitals is neither here nor there: they works to their MOSs, we work to ours. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I assure you it is correct. In the sources I've looked at it is very rarely "Woodcote Camp" - much more frequently it is "Woodcote Park Camp" or "Woodcote Park Convalescent Camp". The official military name seems to be "Woodcote Park Military Convalescent Hospital" but if we want the common "official" name, then that used by C. Pawley Insp's report on the incident on 8 July 1919 would seem most appropriate, in which he writes

"I beg to report that at 11.30pm, 17th June 1919, about 400 Canadian soldiers from Woodcote Park Camp, Epsom, marched to Epsom Police Station"

. Woodcote Park Camp, all capitalised. You have not made a convincing case against this. Polyamorph (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back up any of what you are saying? (And no, a police report from the time is not a reliable source). I'm seeing sources (reliable ones) that call this "Canadian Convalescent Hospital, Woodcote Park" and "Military Convalescent Hospital, Woodcote Park" (no "camp" included in the name). The hospital seems to be the official name, while the camp was part of the hospital, not a named entity in itself. As it's not the formal name, it shouldn't be capitalised. You have not made a convincing case for this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have provided sources, others are available. Per WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements. There is nothing here about whether this is a common or proper place name. What policy are you actually trying to apply here? The policy report is a very reliable source for what authorities at time used for its name and so should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it's a primary source. It is also described as such in the Surrey Times and County Express on 18 June 1915 Your comment: "while the camp was part of the hospital" - the hospital was within the wider military camp. The memorial plaque at the RAC club that is on the same location refers to it as the "Woodcote Park Military Camp and Convalescent Hospital". Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Other sources for "Woodcote Park Camp" . Others exist. Clearly "Woodcote Park Camp" and variations of the same were used. Our policy states place names should be capitalised. Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not the formal name, so shouldn't be capitalised. The formal name, according to the Official History of the Canadian Forces in the Great War, 1914-1919 is the "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". It is also referred to as the "Canadian Convalescent Hospital, Woodcote Park" by the (Canadian Army Medical Corps). The numerous other names are informal nicknames, which do not carry the same weight. You are entirely wrong to say that "the hospital was within the wider military camp" (if you think that, please provide a source that categorically states it as such) The camp was the hospital. The "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital" had 3,900 beds. There wasn't an additional "camp" next to it or around it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yours is not a policy based argument. I have quoted directly from policy that all parts of place names should be capitalised - it does not specify if the name is "formal" or otherwise, and it is very clear from the local sources that I have provided that "Woodcote Park Camp" is how this location was known. The camp was initially built as a training camp for the Royal Fusiliers. It was then repurposed as a convalescent camp. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. Either way, I have removed all references to "Woodcote C/camp" as it was a nickname only and clarified the name was "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". The fusiliers is a straw man: we're talking about the events of 1919 when it was Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Show then, where only "formal" place names should be used, and where it states that if "common" place name is used that it should not be capitalised. This is not how the policy is stated. If the police and local newspapers are referring to it as "Woodcote Park Camp", which I have more than adequately proven, then that is not a "nickname" but the common name. It was first and foremost a military training camp - divided into more "subcamps" - initially only part of the camp was converted to a military hospital / covalescent camp, although that did expand to encompass the entire site. It is disingenuous to say it was a camp within a hospital, that makes zero sense, that's not how military camps are set up. The fusiliers strawman is a lazy accusation on your part. Rather I mention it it because demonstrates to you that it was clearly a military camp and known as such by the locals. Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In your edit summary "Please come to a consensus on the talk page before deciding unilaterally what you want to do" - yet that is exactly what you have done, unilaterally decided what you want to do in your subsequent changes without agreement here - please read again WP:OWN. Polyamorph (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From 1916 (three years before the events in the article) it was taken over by the Canadians and the whole area was designated "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". It comprised 3,900 beds in total. There is nothing disingenuous in this. The point is now moot, the article is correct, and whatever you wish to call it matters not. It was officially the Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital from 1916 until the Canadians moved out. Your "clearly a military camp" is lazy OR when referring to the period in question. There's zero point in continuing this - the article is correct as it stands, regardless of your OR. And you can pop the lazy and childish OWN accusations wherever you wish - a bin preferably. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions, and appear completely incapable of constructive collaboration or listening to common-sense. "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital" may well have been the formal name, but as demonstrated by multiple sources which I have provided, and you have ignored, it was known commonly by the less un-weieldly "Woodcote Park Camp", including by the police reporting the incident and local new papers of the period. There is no policy based reason to insist on your preferred name. Note, you had no problem referring to it as a camp previously, in fact you insisted on doing so. I'm going to open a formal RFC for this, since we are unlikely to come to an agreement. Polyamorph (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional insults: that tells me more than I wanted to know. While you may think the proper name "un-weieldly" (sic), it's the proper name, so we should use it, given this is an encyclopaedia. It's up to you if wish to waste the time of multiple editors in trying to change from the proper name of a place to one of the multiple informal names. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What insults? Feel free to report, my conscience is clear. This is a collaborative project, asking for help to achieve consensus is not a waste of time. I've provided several sources, outlined my case. You choose not agree, hence comment from other users is necessary. If you feel it is a waste of time, then you don't have to involve yourself any further :) Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

According to you, I "appear completely incapable of constructive collaboration or listening to common-sense": not only are those insults, they are utter bullshit too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I apologise if you take offense at that. It is an observation that you appeared not to be listening to my arguments or responding to my reasonable requests for a policy-based rationale for your preference. I may have been overly harsh. But in any case, there is nothing to gain from further mud-slinging, consensus will prevail in the RFC. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Court Hearings and Prosecution

The article says eight men were charged. These included a man called Tait. He isn't mentioned in the piece about the inquest or the trial. Do we know what happened to him? There was another man charged in this number called Porier. Do we know what happened to him? Technically the inquest would not decide who would face trial but the coroner could have recorded a verdict of unlawful killing by named persons I think which would suggest that trial would be appropriate. Between charge and the first appearance at Bow Street there would have been committal proceedings at the Magistrates Court and (in those days) a hearing before a Grand Jury before the Assize trial took place. At either of those hearings Tait and Porier could have been released or the Prosecution could have dropped their cases or the trial judge could have directed not guilty verdicts. Another man called Todd was eventually convicted. Do we know when he was charged? The article says seven men were tried and two of them (McAllen and Todd were acquitted on both counts but it also says five were released from their sentences in November 1919 and a sixth released in December. When I went to school 5+1 = 6 and 7-2 = 5 so the whole thing doesn't match up. Can anybody with the sources sort this out ? Spinney Hill (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As I have already put on my talk page, we go by what the sources say. Your interpretation of how the legal system may or may not have worked in 1919 is neither here nor there: eight men appeared at Bow Street; seven men went to trial at the Assizes - the same seven referred to at the inquest. This is all covered in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Buxton

Buxton is in Derbyshire, not East Sussex. East Sussex has a village called Buxted, and I believe there was a WWII camp there. The source cited refers simply to "Buxton" with no county. Based on cross-referencing with other sources I have checked online, I will change the text accordingly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Nicholson (the source used) got the county wrong on this! - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the name of the Woodcote military base

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn, the sources provided are convincing and as creator of this RFC I withdraw it. Polyamorph (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

---

How should the article refer to the military base / field hospital at Woodcote Park? It's formal name appears to be "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". However, alternative names can be found in sources, including "Woodcote Park Camp" which appears to be the common name used at the time. Please see section above "The name of the camp" for more details and sources. Polyamorph (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Second point: If the official name is not to be used in favour of one of the common names of the camp, please state which of the many common names should be used. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging those who took part in the FAC: Harrias, Steelkamp, Ian Rose, ChrisTheDude, Nikkimaria, and Tim riley. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Woodcote Park Camp. This was the name used at the time by local newspapers, including the Epsom advertiser and Surrey Times and County Express . Note, C. Pawley Insp's report on the incident on 8 July 1919 refers to it as Woodcote Park Camp "I beg to report that at 11.30pm, 17th June 1919, about 400 Canadian soldiers from Woodcote Park Camp, Epsom, marched to Epsom Police Station", indicative of the colloquial name of the military base. I can, potentially, see there might be a case for using the longer formal name "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital" in the first instance in this article, but equally see no reason not simply refer to it as Woodcote Park Camp as it was known in the area at the time. In any case, the sentence "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital, a temporary military base that was being used as a convalescent hospital.", as presently written, is incorrect: How can a hospital be temporarily used as a hospital? Rewriting this as "Woodcote Park Camp, a temporary military base that was being used as a convalescent hospital." is more accurate. Please also note, there is a memorial plaque at the RAC club in which it is referred to as "Woodcote Park Military Camp and Convalescent Hospital", just to know what the location is known as today. Polyamorph (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• Use "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital": the correct name. What an utter waste of time. The correct name at the time of the events in the article was "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital", according to the military sources. Trying to use one of the multiple informal names the location may have picked up over time is farcical when dealing with an encyclopaedia article. Pre-1915 the park was indeed used as just a camp, post 1915 it was "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". The entire camp was the hospital and that's what numerous sources describe it as. The slang terminology used by newspapers or the wording on a plaque doesn't trump the proper name of the place: this is written in more formal language than journalese. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Woodcote Park Camp is not slang, it's the name of the camp that was built on the site, that was converted to a convalescent camp. Even the photo in this article is annotated "Woodcote Park Convalescent Camp". I've provided numerous references proving that the location was known as "Woodcote Park Camp" colloquially. No policy based argument has been provided not to use the common name, and the article is in a ridiculous state where now it is stated that the hospital is being used as a temporary hospital. Commonsense must prevail! Polyamorph (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You've provided no rationale why we should ignore the proper name of the place but instead use a slang name. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I have heavily implied Wikipedia:COMMONNAME applies, i.e. Use commonly recognizable names. Polyamorph (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

None of them are "common". There are several different slang names, so why you want to have one rather than any of the others, and to the detriment of the proper name is a mystery to me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I reject the idea they are slang terms. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME applies Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) - while this relates mostly to titles there certainly isn't any reason to think using a less frequently used "formal" name should be preferred in an article, except by personal preference, which seems to be the case here. Since you consider this a waste of time, I suggest we wait for other opinions, since it's consensus that counts here, not what you or I want. We are not going to agree. Polyamorph (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) COMMONNAME, as is clear by the page and the part you've quoted, is about article titles. If you want to make the case more generally for use within an article, you have to make an argument as to why you are choosing just one of the multiple slang names that are used in various locations: that appears to be personal choice, whereas the proper name is a matter of record and unquestionable for the time period we are looking at. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

As you can read in my comment, I noted the fact that that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME relates to article titles. It is the closest relevant policy. There doesn't appear to be any such policy based rationale for your preference to use a term used very infrequently in the available sources. I understand this is your preference, I have outlined mine to use the !slang common name. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not relevant at all. There is certainly no policy to back up an editor rejecting a formal name to select just one slang name of many for an article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note the FA reviewed version did not use the formal name, you have very recently changed it to your preferred version. Please provide a policy-based rationale for this, as I have done. Polyamorph (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) I have only just noticed the name "Woodcote Park Camp" was actually discussed in the FA (edit: class A review) review, with the suggestion dismissed in favour of the less common "Woodcote camp". I have notified all participants of the FAR (edit: class A review).Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

collapse distraction

This article has never been through FAR. I suspect you mean FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) I was referring to the (edit:) (class A review) peer review process that resulted in elevation of this article to FA, hence FAR, read as FAC if important (I suspect it isn't). Polyamorph (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC) There is Wikipedia:Peer review (PR), for general reviewing of an article of any level; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (FAC) is the review process to promote an article to FA status and Wikipedia:Featured article review (FAR) for the removal of FA status. The three process are rather different and, yes, that difference is rather important. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Christ on a bike! Polyamorph (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the blasphemy. Either way, the name of the camp was not discussed at FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) I don't believe in GOD, Jesus, or any other invisible friend, it's not blasphemy to me, and I reserve the right to express exasperation. You're right! it was the WikiProject A-class review - it was the participants of that who I pinged. Very happy to clarify that. All the best! Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) So why did you ping people from a lower review, rather than the more recent one which gave it its current status? And exasperated? Fuck me! Having to jump through pointless and ridiculous steps just because you don't know how to WP:DROPTHESTICK? What a waste of time and effort you are generating because you find the name of the place "un-weieldly" (sic). - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) As you can probably gather, I thought I was looking at the FA review. I mistakenly was looking at the class A review. I have corrected this. I will ping all participants of the FAC as well. That's a cock-up on my part. I really am not making you jump through anything, I don't know how you get that impression. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC) I have already pinged them (as above): please don't disturb them further than that. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Soz, didn't see in time. Some of those users I'd already notified in any case as they participated in the A review.Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)  Done: pinged FAC participants Polyamorph (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a specific guideline that says we should use an official place name over a more common name for a place? Since we are writing the article for people today, and not those in the 1910s, shouldn't we favour the name that is in use today in referring to the historical place? I would tend to give more weight to the name used in current reliable secondary sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Polyamorph. Even he or she and Schrocat agree on the full name "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital". I have had a similar argument with Schrocat on the subject of "Woodcote camp previously." I believe that Schrocat believes that as "Woodcote Camp" was not the official name we must use "camp" with a small c meaning that we are dealing with a camp which happens to be at Woodcote. This would mean it should be "the Woodcote camp" or better still "the camp at Woodcote." But I don't think we need to do that. We should not confuse the phrase "official name" with " proper name" meaning a name that requires a capital letter. Winston Churchill's official name was "Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill" but most people referred to him as "Winston Churchill." or simply "Churchill" That use was entirely correct and capital letters were required. People who knew him apparently called him "Winston" or even "Winnie" but a capital letter is still required and in varying situations all five versions might correctly be used in a Wikipedia article. In the article on Churchill four versions are used. In Alan Silitoe's novel "Key of the Door" various characters call him "Fatguts." Except perhaps in an article about that novel that name should not be used in a Wikipedia article but if it were a capital F would still be required. Any name used in a reliable factual source as a name for the camp could be used in this article even if if "incorrect" or "unofficial." The formula "Woodford camp " is annoying and if it is indeed required by Wikipedia rules those rules ought to be changed or ignored. I don't actually think that is what the Manual of Style says and if "Woodcote Camp" is a name that was used at the time it is correct to use it in an article such as this. An instruction to write the "king" in a piece that can only refer to the "King of the UK" (e.g. the King in Parliament) or King Charles III is equally annoying.Spinney Hill (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Rather than going over ancient history and the straw men of Churchill's name, perhaps you could address whether the article should use the camp's proper name, or one of the many slang names given to it, which is the point of the RfC. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My point about Churchill is not "a straw man" as you put it. I seem to remember you used that expression before. Argument by analogy is a recognised technique. Part of my point is that if somewhere has plenty of names you don't have to use the same one every time you mention it. It depends upon the circumstances. Use the agreed formal name at least once, but it may be better to use another some of the time. Spinney Hill (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it really is. There is no similarity in how someone's middle names are not included in most circumstances, and the name of a military hospital. See straw man if you further clarity on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• This RFC seems to me a singular waste of everyone's time. The terminology used when the article passed FAC was fine then and is fine now. Tim riley talk 14:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The terminology used when the article passed FAC is no longer in use. An RFC is the appropriate mechanism for requesting community consensus where agreement can not be reached, and as such is not a waste of time since participation is entirely voluntary. Polyamorph (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Woodcote Park Camp, which can be shortened as needed to Woodcote Camp, per naming policy and MOS:PROPERNAME. And yes, as Spinney Hill pointed out, a thing can have more than one proper name. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine: let's just make up names and ignore that they are really called. PROPERNAME doesn't say to use a couple of slang names rather than the proper one, and "Woodcote Park Camp" was not the name of the place between 1915 and c.1920. It was "Woodcote Park Camp" only between 1914 and 1915. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've been repeating slang like a scare word but I haven't seen a substantive argument to show that it applies here or that a name being "slang" should have any impact on the discussion vis-a-vis policy and guidelines. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  This has been a particular frustration with my interaction. Common name != slang. Polyamorph (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I use it because it's a slang name. It's not the proper name, which is the one that should be used. Why on earth would we not use "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital", which is the proper name. Just to reduce the word count by one in the name? It's lazy writing that follows journalese, not formal encyclopaedic usage. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital — per reliabe sources and MOS:PROPERNAME - use Woodcote Park Camp as the alternative name. This sentence in the lead is accurate: The Canadians were from the nearby Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital, a former temporary military base that had been converted for use as a convalescent hospital. In 1915 it was converted to the hospital, which means at the time of this event in 1919, it was officially the Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. The powers that be decided that the camp should become a Convalescent Hospital, built as a training camp in 1914...Convalescent Hospital opened in 1915. This also tracks with our article Woodcote Park. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital — per reliable sources and MOS:PROPERNAME - as above. I'm not even sure Wikipedia:COMMONNAME applies. Neither the site, nor indeed the events that occurred there and which the article describes, are remotely well-known. We have a sourced "official" name, which even the RfC originator acknowledges - "It's formal name appears to be "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital" - why on earth is there any issue with using it? It does strike me that this is another example of a main page appearance leading to a rather pointless spat. And, as so often, I do lament the acres of prose spent on debating an utterly trivial point; a worthwhile start article could have been written with less effort. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  In answer to your question, without wanting to add further to the acres of prose, why? Because of the sources I've provided in which it is referred to as Woodcote Park Camp - which seems to have been used much more frequently that the "official name" - it would be nice to consider that point, even if you ultimately want to dismiss it. Polyamorph (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  At the time of the event in 1919, it was a Convalescent Hospital. Using the alternative name implies that it was still being used for military training purposes in 1919, it wasn't. That's the way I see it. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly appreciate what you're saying, but it does not seem to be the name that was used in most of the sources at the time. Although I see someone has done a stellar job finding many instances of "Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital" in the sources below. Anyway, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well sure, since it was formerly a military training camp, it wouldn't be uncommon for sources to still call it a camp, but the sources also tell us that when this event took place in 1919, it was a Convalescent Hospital. Here is a brochure from that time period saying it is a Military Convalescent Hospital, but at the same time in the photos you will see they also use the word camp - Military Convalescent Hospital, Woodcote Park, Epsom. Here also is a handwritten letter to his wife/girlfriend sister telling her of an address change to Convalescent Hospital, Woodcote Park Epson. And likewise, I get what you are saying, but my !vote is for the official name at the time of the event. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital — per reliabe sources and MOS:PROPERNAME. The formal name is more descriptive and clearer, and sources do not support the use of the informal name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:PROPERNAME relates to capitalisation of names, nothing to do with use of formal names. Without wanting to be rude, it would be prudent to read these pages before citing them. Polyamorph (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  You asked for comment. It is considered inappropriate to then badger the commentators when they disagree with you. Seriously, this wasn’t a point worth making when you began it. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's a copy pasted comment from elsewhere (from you in fact), and is wrong. It is a point worth making because MOS:PROPERNAME is a completely irrelevant policy that probably sounds like it does have relevance. I'm not badgering anyone and appreciate all contributions, unless you are going to explain how I'm mistaken and in fact MOS:PROPERNAME is relevant here then please let the record state it isn't. This is my final comment on this RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  “Let the record state” - we do have a tendency to overdramatise. This isn’t a Congressional hearing, it’s an unnecessary RfC on a trivial issue. And I think the consensus is sufficiently clear to let us all move on. KJP1 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital — as per reliable sources and MOS:PROPERNAME. I concur with the very good arguments brought by SchroCat, Ssilvers and KJP1. Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital - as per arguments above and use of the proper name is to be preferred over informal names in most contexts. There are instances in which the more informal name may be preferred due to overwhelming use (Stonewall Jackson as an example), but this does not appear to be one of those instances. Hog Farm _Talk 21:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital per a plethora of sources, and hoping for a speedy end to this time sink. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, magazines, newspapers, books and photos

Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Canadian Journal of Medicine and Surgery. 1916. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Canada Lancet: Lancet Publishing Company. 1917. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Canadian Practitioner and Review. 1916. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1916. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1916. Andrew Macphail (1925). Official History of the Canadian Forces in the Great War 1914-19: The Medical Services. The Minister of National Defence. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital Messurier, Paul Le (15 July 2019). Surrey's Military Heritage. Amberley Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-4456-8963-0. Mantle, Craig Leslie (12 February 2007). The Apathetic and the Defiant: Case Studies of Canadian Mutiny and Disobedience, 1812 to 1919. Dundurn. ISBN 978-1-55002-710-5. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. The Railway Magazine. 1915. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Moore's Monthly Magazine. 1917. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Great Eastern Railway Magazine. 1915. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital. Musical News. 1915. Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital The Times 1916 Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital The Australian Town and Country Journal 1916 Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital Dumfries and Galloway Standard 1916 Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital The Surrey Advertiser 1917 Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital The Vancouver Sun 1917 Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital Getty Images circa 1915 (Johnson's Camp Shop Series) Woodcote Park Convalescent Hospital WW1 photos (Johnson's Camp Shop Series) Convalescent Hospital Woodcote Park Canada's History - George Stewart (Johnson's Camp Shop Series)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Rose by any Other Name

Not sure what is wrong with folks at Wikipedia at times. For while this article covers some interesting events, all some people can Talk about is the name of the Hospital/Camp/camp. Sorry, but is debating such a minor point - in such detailed way - that interesting or helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.171 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope. But such is the way of Wikipedia, unfortunately... - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is important to be accurate. Could things be done more efficiently, sure. But it’s usually the little things that become sticking points and it’s better to hash it out in talk pages rather than edit warring in article space. Regarding your question about what's "wrong" with wikipeadian's - absolutely nothing, it comes with the territory. Polyamorph (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s certainly important to be accurate: using the proper names of things is an excellent start in an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dare I ask (in the friendliest of terms) for the policy where that is stated? :) Polyamorph (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You can ask, but given the insults you’ve sent my way today, you can work it out for yourself. Common sense is a good starting point in using the right name for something. - 18:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You've been rather hostile yourself. I have attempted to cool things down in conversations to you, but asking for your policy rationale is not an unreasonable request which I made several times. My interpretation of the policy supports use of the common name, not the formal name. But im very happy for you to provide the policy which states the formal name is preferred. I suspect it doesn't exist. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You have not tried to cool anything. You have been obtuse and insulting throughout and are pushing a personal preference that does not improve anything. I am in full agreement with what KJP1 said above. I’m dropping out of discussion with you now: you are unlikely to take any of this on board and are unlikely to accept that you’ve been disruptive in pushing this so far. WP:DROPTHESTICK is something you should read, inwardly digest and put into practice. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been obtuse and insulting throughout and are pushing a personal preference that does not improve anything apologies for my tone in the earlier parts of our discussion. I did already apologise above, for that as well. And I absolutely have attempted to alter my language to cool things with you, that will be evident in this talk page. Regarding the stick, I dropped it a while ago. I suggest you do the same. All the best :) Polyamorph (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Delighted to see that this non-issue has finally gone away. What a waste of all our time! Tim riley talk 21:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Identity of the killer

The article repeatedly identifies McMaster as the man who struck the fatal blow on Green, but dances around the issue of whether this was known at the time of the trial or if he was only identified a decade later, when he confessed. Did they know (or strongly suspect) at the time of trial? If not, perhaps he should not be identified by name so early. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

McMaster was one of the seven men charged with manslaughter, which strongly indicates that the Crown had enough evidence to warrant going to trial. That fact, along with his subsequent confession, seems sufficient to identify him in the narration of the events. This isn't an Agatha Christie novel, where it all comes out in the last chapter. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no indication in the sources whether it was known that he was the guilty party at the time, just that he was one of those involved in the rioting and that there was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction for that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

But the seven were charged not just with rioting, but also with manslaughter, as recommended by the coroner’s inquest. That means that the Crown had sufficient evidence to warrant charges and a trial, of those seven. The acquittals meant that the jury wasn’t satisfied of guilt, but doesn’t mean there was no evidence that those seven had been involved in the killing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed: I think I may have phrased what I wrote clumsily. What I meant was that the sources do not make it clear if the authorities knew at the time that is was McMaster that stuck the blow. What they would have known was that he was one of the possible people who would have been responsible, along with some (but not all) of the others who were charged with manslaughter. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Referring to Private Allan McMaster, a former blacksmith, stepped forward and smashed an iron bar onto the policeman's head., if the perpetrator was alive (or recently dead), we wouldn't be able to state it that way under BLP rules unless he was convicted for doing this (WP:BLPCRIME). Is knowledge of this today based solely on his confession? It might be worth a footnote. –  Reidgreg (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be worth a footnote? We cover the full history of what happened in the article, so what would a footnote actually say? - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Luckily for us—if maybe not for them—BLP does not cover people who died *checks notes* over 80 years ago, so it's pretty irrelevant. SN54129 14:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to my unanswered question, whether this is based solely on McMaster's confession (which may or may not be truthful). The article expresses it as fact that McMaster struck the blow to the victim. In comparison, the possibility of a royal pardon (apparently based on what McMaster said at the time of his confession) is treated much more cautiously (and much less prominently), as it should be. And so, depending on the answer to my question, responsibility for blow to the head might also be treated more cautiously. If there is a strong agreement of opinion amongst high-quality reliable sources (Gardner, Knight) then a footnote might indicate this, but I find it difficult to be specific without a good-faith answer to my question. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The article reflects the sources: we don't need a footnote to explain that. (This is my second good faith answer to the question). - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)