Talk:1858 Bradford sweets poisoning/Archive 1

'Druggist'
The word 'druggist' is not one I would use, and I did not believe that anybody in the UK would use it in reference to a UK pharmacist. I have not removed it, but it reads oddly to me - or was it a contemporary word? The normal work in UK English is 'chemist' however misleading that might be. --ColinFine 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imangie it is a contemporoary word - Jones uses it when reffering to Hodgson and he in turn may have gotten the word from Sheeran. As such, I can't imagine it would be American, and as the article shows, words change over time (lozange anyone?). I you feel Pharmaisct would be more appropriate I do not object to it being changed.--Crestville 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name
I don't understand why this has been moved from 'The Bradford Sweet Poisoning'. To me, the original title reads much more idiomatically, as qualifying nouns are not usually in the plural unless there is a specific ambiguity to be avoided. --ColinFine 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing, "the" is typically avoided in article titles (except for proper names). Also, there is a minor ambiguity inherent in the use of "sweet" as a singular - is it meant as a qualifying noun, or as an adjective? "Sweet poison" as opposed to "bitter poison"?


 * It could also refer to the suspicious death of Bradford Sweet, son of Mr and Mrs Sweet - which brings us to the question of capitalization. Typically, event descriptors are not capitalized in article names - "Madrid Train Bombing" redirects to "2004 Madrid train bombings", "Challenger Disaster" redirects to "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster", etc.


 * That said, you did quite well; keep at it. DS 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept your point about capitalisation, but I think it would read much better as 'Bradford sweet poisoning' than 'Bradford sweets poisoning'. --ColinFine 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'As a result of'
I've removed the clause in the introductory paragraph that said that the poisoning was 'a result of' inadequate legislation. No doubt it would have been less likely if there had been stricter legislation, but that's the strongest statement that can honestly be made. --ColinFine