Talk:Workhouse

message: The concensus on the poor law page seemed to be to split this article out so I have.--Moonlight Mile 00:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is looking really good now. It just needs referencing. In particular, where did the typical workhouse day come from.--Moonlight Mile 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: concensus on the poor law

message: This statement:
"The earliest recorded example of a workhouse dates to 1652 in Exeter. There is however some written evidence that workhouses existed before this date. Records mention a workhouse in 1631"
is self-contradicting. If records mention a workhouse in 1631, then 1652 isn't the earliest recorded example.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. Edited to correctly reflect reference. RashersTierney (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest record of workhouse

message: The section on diet is flatly contradicted by BMJ 2008:337:a:2722 which is a peer reviewed publication in the British Medical Journal looking through all the historical evidence and examining nutritional content of work house diets. Dickens was rather POV (he was in a workhouse as a child) and the reality discussed at length is that "the workhouse diet was certainly dreary but adequate".--BozMo talk 08:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: It's an interesting article and, with little doubt, reasonably accurate. However, far too much is uncited and a lot of work needs to be put in to correct that serious fault. The sources are surely available without difficulty. Without them, the charges of over-indulgence and POV will always have some basis. I'm also worried about copyright, as slabs may have been copied from websites such as this one. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, this article is long overdue a serious copyedit, pruning, however you want to put it. If you would like to make a start, I'll help where I can. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification needed 

message: If I find sources, I'll add here. Don't know if you've seen this, but it should be helpful:
*The Victorian Workhouse
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: L !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.236.170 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The article states that: In 1803 workhouse paupers nationally earned about £70,000 and cost about £40,000 to maintain, "nowhere near self-sufficiency".
This confuses me. If the paupers "earn" (=produce?) more than the cost of their upkeep, then by definition the workhouse should be self-sufficient. Are the numbers simply inverted, or am I missing something? MCSmarties (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exactly what the source says, but I agree that it's perhaps not immediately obvious how to interpret it. Bear in mind that as the century wore on fewer and fewer of those entering workhouses were able-bodied, and so couldn't work; those who were were able-bodied were unable to produce enough profit to support those who were not. In other words, to maintain the able-bodied cost £40,000 and they in turn were able to produce a profit of £30,000, but that was nowhere near what it cost to support all of the paupers. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-sufficiency?

message: I've ignored the lead for now.  I think the first paragraph is a bit impenetrable on the first pass.  To begin with, let's assume I don't know what a parish is, and what a labourer is.  Is a labourer a particular job, a class of person, or any able-bodied subject?  Are "the resulting laws against vagrancy" derived from the 1388 Act?  Is Henry's dissolution of the monasteries particularly relevant to the subject at hand, particularly bearing in mind the following sentence?
Second paragraph, here we're introduced to the concept of a workhouse, but we're not given any idea what a 17th-century workhouse was, or looked like.  The reader might be forgiven for getting a little impatient here, as he came to find that out, so perhaps offer him a tidbit?  Maybe a really old picture of a workhouse?  The timeline then jumps from 1601 straight to 1723, with only a single sentence about the evolution of the workhouse.  Are examples available to better illustrate this evolution?  Also, I'm still not sure what a parish is or how it can care for people.
Gilbert seems to have been someone who cared about the poor, perhaps mention of that might be made?
We're told the amount spent had risen to £7 million, but risen from what?  I appreciate this might not be available. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is crap, I agree, but we can sort that out later. Isn't it obvious that those who labour are labourers? There was no standard 17th-century workhouse, they differed widely, but please feel free to make whatever improvements you think are necessary; I keep stalling with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I always leave leads until last.  I have a pretty good idea what a labourer is, but I can see how the term might confuse some.  I imagine some people might think a labourer is someone who does a bit of plastering. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't get plasterers these days. Plastered, but not plasterers. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I've (hopefully) fixed the rubbish punctuation in the "those responsible to the local taxpayers" bit, but I'm not at all sure about Colquhoun, so any insight you have into that would be most welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't feel strongly about the last paragraph of the social section; obviously I think it's OK where it is, but if you think it would be better in the legal section that's fine by me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I think we'll have enough to do just to just to adequately cover the English workhouses. Obviously the history and regulations governing workhouses in Scotland in particular were quite different anyway. I think my original intention was probably to try and cover Irish and Scottish workhouses, but the article has developed in a different way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this article need a new title, and workhouse articles in other geographical areas/jurisdictions develop entirely separately? RashersTierney (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need a new title until articles on workhouses in other countries are written. The social and legal background, and regulations governing workhouses even in Scotland are quite different than in England. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First thoughts, long-winded (sorry!) 

message: If this article is now to be exclusively about English workhouses, should it not be titled 'English workhouses'? RashersTierney (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until someone writes an article on Irish workhouses or whatever. This article has never been about anything other than English workhouses. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you deleted the pertinent reference in the lead, and substantially rewrote the article recently, it was, apparently. RashersTierney (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from that throw-away comment in the lead it has always been just about English workhouses. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Then call it that. RashersTierney (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to change the title until someone writes another workhouse article. WP:PRECISION applies. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a straightforward example of . As the present title stands, the newly re-vamped article does not present a global perspective on the term. Will tag accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag.  Maybe you know of workhouses in other countries, if so, get writing. Parrot of Doom 06:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. Under normal WP rules, an article called "Workhouse" covers things called "workhouses" wherever they are, at least potentially. If you want to restrict the scope, fine, but you have to change the title. Otherwise you have to accept whatever small mentions people may make of (say) Ireland without going all dog in the manger about it. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, even if the article were called something like Poorhouses in England and Wales, the inclusion of fewer than a dozen words on terms in the rest of the then UK would be entirely encyclopedic, and it would be wrong to remove it. But I see I am wasting my time here. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, you're demonstrating very nicely that you are entirely ignorant of the history of what were commonly called Houses of Industry in Ireland, which is by no means a waste of time. But why not try your hand at improving that article instead of trying to cause a fight here?   Eric Corbett 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Ok, I made a few big changes.  I've rearranged most of the architecture, diet, work sections into one new section, and tried to form the first draft of what I hope can become a more integrated read.  There are some obvious holes, for instance, the "second wave of construction" isn't in the right place in "Later developments..."  Also, I've added bits and pieces of prose to link things together, but where I'm not sure if I'm forming an incorrect opinion I've tagged each case (also check for the odd hidden comment).
If people don't think this is the right way to go please feel free to revert. Parrot of Doom 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's starting to shape up, so no objections from me. I think we probably need to split your new Architecture and conditions section though, into pre and post-New Poor Law sections for instance, as things changed very dramatically after 1834. Added to which the whole Management and staffing section applies only to post-1834 workhouses. But we're moving forward.Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll leave the article alone until tomorrow to give people a chance to absorb these changes.  It does highlight that there isn't much in the article about conditions inside the workhouse in the 18th century.  I found an excerpt from a speech by William III about workhouses, have you seen that? Parrot of Doom 21:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall having seen that, no. But as I'm sure I've said before, the problem with pre-1834 workhouses was that there was very little in the way of regulation, and consequently they they differed widely in every respect. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's something we could mention then, quoting a few examples (if they exist)?  Here's the William III quote. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructured 

message: While children are mentioned regularly, I don't think there's anything in the article which suggests that they were forced into work.  This document (here's the Google Books link) suggests that during the 18th century, parish children were employed in local workshops, the parish workhouse, or "school of industry". Parrot of Doom 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does say that children "were often forcibly apprenticed without the permission or knowledge of their parents". Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a fair bit, although it covers a few aspects and may need to be merged/separated/integrated. Parrot of Doom 19:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a nice addition. I didn't quite understand this though: "Some parishes advertised for apprenticeships, and were willing to pay anyone who was prepared to accept." Were the parishes advertising for employers to offer apprenticeships or for apprentices? And who was getting paid, the employer or the apprentice? Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The parishes were trying to get the kids out the door and into someone else's house, learning a trade.  They'd pay the employer to take them off their hands (the kids would stay at their employer's house/mill/etc) as it was cheaper than maintaining them in the workhouse. Parrot of Doom 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: If I add this as a bookmark in my browser it'll get forgotten, so I'll put it here.  It's a review of Kempthorne's design, by The Architectural Magazine.  I thought it worth including but it there's already enough praise I think. page 511-512. Parrot of Doom 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Architectural Magazine 

message: I've found a reference to what I imagine was a quite terrifying scenario for some workhouse inmates - the threat of being anatomically dissected.  Apparently, in 1829, around the time of the first Anatomy Bill, one chap who claimed that inmates in the workhouse were eating Soylent Green was hauled before the magistrates for kicking up a stink.  This tale apparently persisted for some decades.  Before I go any further, is this relevant here, or is it more relevant to the Anatomy Bill article (or whatever it is)?  It appears as though the law allowed the bodies of dying or dead inmates to be sent for dissection.  It may be relevant to the desire of the authorities to make the workhouse something to be feared. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's another of these complicated stories. There was a case of an inmate jailed by magistrates after he claimed that the bodies of children in the workhouse were being rendered into pies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nattomy soup 

message: I'm satisfied now after having looked into this that Charles Dickens was referring to orphanages, not workhouses, when he coined the phrase "paupers palaces". Just putting this here as a memory jogger should it be required. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paupers Palaces 

message: An interesting snippet I found which may, or may not, be relevant here.
"In the course of the first century of the Anatomy Act's application, almost 57,000 bodies were dissected in the London anatomy schools alone.  Less than half a percent came from anywhere other than institutions which housed the poor". - Ruth Richardson, "Death, Dissection and the Destitute".  In other words, if you died in the Workhouse, your body may very well have ended up under the knife. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissection 

message: Well, nobody does of course, but it looks like a few "bad apples" are resisting any changes (or possibly enforcing a bias against IPs?).  I've attempted to make a few very simple and innocuous improvements to a few sentences.  They are solid improvements clearly done in good faith.  I've been met with only summary reversions.  Little attempt was made by them to give reasons while I've gone out of my way to explain my changes in detail.  In all cases (except maybe the first reversion that had some suggestions in its edit summary) there was no attempt to actually improve on the changes, just summary reverts.
I calling you on this guys.  Nobody owns a WP article.  Your tag-team series of reactive reverts with very weak justifications is way out of line.  You do have the de-facto power to wear me out because you (all) are clearly closely watching and/or "defending" the article, and I'm "just" an IP passing through trying to help out a little (but I've been editing WP longer than any of you).  If this kind of help isn't wanted by the article's "guardians", so be it, but it's poor form on your part and it's against Wikipedia policy as well.
108.7.2.66 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking at this the wrong way.  It isn't that a series of editors are conspiring to ruin your day, it's that your edits make the article more difficult to understand.  If that keeps happening then no, your help isn't wanted, but you're quite free to suggest other lines of research and missing information that as a group, we can use to improve this article. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth considering that any GA is going to draw some attention from folks who want to keep the article at that status. Since GAs are evaluated in part on style, changes to style will always draw attention. It's often best to try to work those things out on the talk page. Getting an article to GA is hard work and takes a lot of attention. Maybe you should try being sensitive to that, 7.2.66. Intothatdarkness 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, interesting point. :-)   108.7.2.66 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I spent a long time working on this article, and it was hard work. I'm all for others improving where they can – Parrot of Doom has suggested a new section on the disposal of the workhouse dead to anatomists for instance – but I'm damned if I'll sit back and watch it descend into the general gloopiness that characterises so many WP articles. You may call that ownership if you like, but I prefer to consider it a form of guardianship. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: You've been "editing WP longer than any of you"? Really? Under what usernames? Mattisse for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

text: No, you only think you're good at it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "Case in point" about civility.  108.7.2.66 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surely not incivil to tell someone they're wrong, especially when they are. After all you have characterized editors as "bad apples" and  a Gang of 3 making tag-team knee-jerk reverts. You can't have it all ways. I see you are now baiting. J3Mrs (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. 108.7.2.66 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being hypocritical, complaining about incivility when you're chucking accusations around left, right and centre.  Your edits made the article worse, end of story. Parrot of Doom 00:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. 108.7.2.66 (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  (e/c) I consider it quite bad form to say one is good at something, for the simple reason that one can never assess one's own worth with any certainty of validity or lack of bias. Doing so could also indicate a more general lack of skill at making judgments, because if one were really good at it, one would realise one shouldn't say such things openly, and leave it for others to state or work out for themselves by looking at one's behaviour and actions. (sorry for the use of "one", etc: I used it to avoid any interpretation that I was directing my comments solely and specifically at anyone in particular, which, given what has happened, seemed a necessary thing to do.)  DDStretch  (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who owns this article? 

message: Kempthorne produced two designs, which the article reproduces, but looking only at the image captions they're a bit confusing.  The body makes clear what he did, but the captions seem to suggest he produced only a rectangular design and only a hexagonal design.  This could be mistaken for an error.  I tried to introduce wording in the captions to make it clearer, but I can't think of anything satisfactory. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I'm following that, but I've added the description "cruciform" to the first image. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you read (past tense) the first image caption, you'd think Kempthorne created a rectangular design.  But the second caption contradicts this, as there's no mention of two designs.  But I think you've fixed it anyway. Parrot of Doom 08:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little thing that bugs me 

message: Ok I think I've lifted the bulk of what's available in the Richardson book and typed it up here.  I have another source to look through (Wise - see Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom but Richardson will almost certainly have much more.  It's by no means an article but I think there's a solid basis for another section here.  Perhaps we can use what I've written to find more in the existing sources. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good stuff there. I'm still not sure what the best way of integrating that kind of material is though. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a quote there about mortality rates.  Perhaps mention something about general health in the workhouse and then lead onto the daunting prospect of a pauper funeral? Parrot of Doom 21:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not a bad idea. I added a little bit about workhouse infirmaries a couple of weeks ago, but maybe that could be expanded with at least some of this material. There's a fundamental paradox about workhouses, in that the residents were in some ways such as education and health care actually treated better than the poor outside. Apart from being dissected of course. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This book  might be useful. J3Mrs (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it will, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauper funerals, dissection etc 

message: I'm afraid I can't see clearly made the point I am interested in - the continuity between workhouse provision and the NHS.
:That's not quite how it worked, as the article explains:
:
: Eric Corbett 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NHS

message: Bleary eyed and deprived of coffee this morning, I could have sworn that what I was doing was making things consistent. Alas, I was wrong for which I apologise.  Anyway, ref 50 is still not consistent with the rest (check closing period). I won't fix, just incase that's wrong too ;) Cassiantotalk 13:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: It appears that this article is based (citations) around 50% on a single work. I have no idea how to tag it properly but clearly that's a problem. As much as I personally love specific academics, basing a a single encyclopedia entry on almost exclusively one of them (and almost exclusively just one of their works) is probably not so good yes? Reading a single book doesn't make an encyclopedia entry. As I'm just passing through and this is no where near my realm of expertise, someone should please fix. 2601:204:C002:7081:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're passing, please don't let us stop you from continuing your journey.  CassiantoTalk 07:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

text: 50% of citations does not equal 50% of content. Parrot of Doom 11:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't believe that I'm having to even say this, but, given a reasonable assumption that citations should be roughly uniform (fair to say particularly given the volume of assertions in this article yes?), even a third of 146 citations is absolutely ridiculous. It basically says, "I read a book, and this is all I have to say because of this book". Given the depth of the subject, that's pretty inappropriate if you ask me as there is undoubtedly quite a few secondary sources available on the matter. And yes... I'm just passing through... thought some people who actually worked on this article/had some expertise in the subject might have some red-flags flipped in their brains if I mentioned it. Evidently not. 2601:204:C002:7081:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based mostly on a single work 

message: I might be completely wrong, but from what I've read about, & seen on tv shows like 20/20 & 60 minutes, factories in China making smart phones & tablets & other computer items, they seem to run a lot like what this article describes as a workhouse. Poor villagers, usually female, work at factory & live in dormstories on the same grounds as the factory, sometimes with fencing, with little to no freedom or time outside the aformentioned factory grounds, for what westerners would call a measly stipend.
It is of course called a work contract.
But is this not a 21st version of a workhouse?
Ignore & delete if no one agrees.
Seem like no one agrees about anything about this article. --2601:145:600:3A29:CC02:9D2:59A2:8E51 (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are indeed completely wrong.  Eric Corbett 11:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st Century  Chinese Workhouses 

message: I am trying to construct an article Workhouse infirmary to fit into the history of nursing and hospitals.  I don't plan to lose any material, but I don't think it all needs to be duplicated.Rathfelder (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good article, broad in its coverage and should not be stripped of referenced information without attribution. Write the article but don't cut and paste from here. J3Mrs (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workhouse infirmary 

message: Was "spike" a colloquialism for the workhouse as a whole or the casual ward? Orwell had it as the latter, and although it's possible he was mistaken, dictionaries seem to suggest "spike" for temporary accommodation, and there are other examples such as this  referring to "a hierarchy even in hell and the spike was always physically separate from the workhouse". Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "spike" name 

message: This article is cited in Martin Ravallion, The Economics of Poverty (2015, 31). Ravallion writes:
The (excellent) Wikipedia entry on workhouses describes the work done as follows:
Many inmates were allocated tasks in the workhouse such as caring for the sick or teaching that were beyond their capabilities, but most were employed on generally pointless work, such as breaking stones or removing the hemp from telegraph wires. . . . Bone-crushing, useful in the creation of fertilizer, was a task most inmates could perform, until a government inquiry into conditions in the Andover workhouse 1845 found that starving paupers were reduced to fighting over the rotting bones they were supposed to be grinding, to suck out the marrow.
Omphaloscope talk 12:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in Ravallion 

message: I propose merging poorhouse and Scottish poorhouse into workhouse. From those articles and this one, it looks like poorhouse is mostly used as a synonym for workhouse. Under the current title, this should contain a broad summary of the subject, but the article seems to mostly deal with England. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose because they were different things and operated under different legal systems. The workhouse was a feature of the English Poor Laws, the Scottish poorhouse under the Scottish Poor Laws. Poor house serves for an international overview. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose In principle at least, a requirement for work was never part of the Scottish poor relief system and its poorhouse institutions, so it would make no sense to include them here. In England and Wales, poorhouses were parish-run establishments providing accommodation for poor individuals, typically the elderly or disabled, where again there was no work requirement. Because some parish poorhouses evolved into workhouses, there is sometimes a fuzziness of terminology in their description. Pghonline (talk) 11:52, 08 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose Different subjects and different systems/jurisdictions. LordHarris (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given consensus not to merge any of the articles. Klbrain (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The page for St Martin in the Fields does not appear to agree with the equation of Almshouse and Workhouse. One of the two pages is misleading. I think it is Workhouse, which should not contain a reference to this specific almshouse. John (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: St Martin in the Fields

message: Placing this right in the first sentence does not seem to meet NPOV. Nothing else usually classed as falling under the concept does this. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "total institution" 

message: Miss hedges 77.98.239.206 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English plus