Talk:Brookwood Cemetery/Archive 1

Recent changes
The above was written 5 - 6 months ago. Since the article hasn't been split, I spent some time today trying to improve it. Expert attention is needed in places. - Astrochemist (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your notion that this is not a military history project and to subsume it into such a narrow category is entirely misleading. One may as well include the cemetery into a Wiki transport and road building history project on the basis that the remains of thousands of people were re-interred at Brookwood because of various London road widening and building schemes. Best wishes for any work on the cemetery accordingly. If a page emerges about the "civilian" cemetery I may be able to contribute some images. WyrdLight Jan 09


 * I wouldn't get too exercised about a project tag. All it means is that a set of people might give the article some attention. Clearly the military part of the cemetery and possibly a few graves in the ordinary cemetery are significant for military historians. Many articles come under several projects and it does them no harm at all. If it worries you, you could tag Brookwood Cemetery in the same way as Talk:Woking under WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Surrey. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Burial plots
Janet Smith was listed as having a grave in the cemetery. Is this correct? If it is she couldn't have been the wife of Captain Smith, who is recorded in several places as being married to Sarah Eleanor (nee Pennington). Where did the original info come from? Can someone nearby have a look (the location is in the list). In the meantime I have corrected her details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleapit (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah Eleanor Pennington, wife of Captain Edward John Smith, was knocked down by a taxi on April 28, 1931 and subsequently died. She is buried in Brookwood Cemetery. Her daughter Helen Melville "Mel" Smith is buried nearby. -- JHvW  (talk)   15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject???
Why is the *whole* of Brookwood cemetery classed within the military history project?

In truth the cemetery (qua cemetery - other parts have been sold off for other purposes) has long been two separate entities, separately run, owned and legally distinct. This deserves to be respected by having two separate entries in Wiki.

I am looking to do a general rewrite of this article. I have first hand knowledge of the cemetery and its history as well as being a student of John Clarke's books and a contributor to them. I will try to do summat in the near future. If I do I will divide the article - with editors' blessings, of course.

TJ (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Splitting the article into military and non-military would seem appropriate. Since the entity "Brookwood Cemetery" was there first, I suggest the correct approach is to create a separate article about "Brookwood Military Cemetery", leaving the non-military part under the original title. To be strictly accurate, the second article might be better-named "Brookwood military cemeteries", encompassing the British, US and Russian memorials. However, either way you will be creating two stubs and some expansion will be required (with appropriate references, of course). EdJogg (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Ed Yes, I too was wondering about the plural. There are in fact many nationalities represented, some in separate national plots -  Czechoslovakian, French, Italian,  Polish… People from  all across a world at war. Very poignant. The Russia Memorial in fact commemorates British and I think some Commonwealth soldiers killed in Russia. As far as I know there are no Russians buried in the cemetery.

I agree that creating two stubs is not really acceptable. I Will try to augment the material available before taking any such step.

TJ (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is regretable that the article is still not split. The Military Cemetery contains several cemeteries as does the civilian cemetery. The Military Cemetery is clearly defined as it is surrounded by a fence and has individual gates. It would be useful to create a seperate article about the Military Cemetery. Maybe this is frowned upon, but obtaining the cooperation of Brookwood Cemetery Ltd and from the people who run the Military Cemetery could be very useful. Brookwood Cemetery is an important historic landmark and needs more attention than given in the article. It is also worth a visit. Perhaps the Brookwood Cemetery Society could help.


 * Having looked at the articles for Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial and the London Necropolis Company I can only conclude that there is no encyclopedic system in this subject. In my opinion there should be three articles. One for the Cemetery, focussing on the civilian aspects, the Military Cemetery should be mentioned but should have it's own article and a seperate article about the LNC focussing on the company rather than their properties. It is also my opinion that some of the nomenclature is not correct. The Military Cemetery in Brookwood is a seperate entity in Brookwood Cemetery and is surrounded by a fence and has several gates. The Military Cemetery itself is split into two main parts, The American Military Cemetery in Brookwood, which incidentally is it's correct name, and the other part, which contains many monuments and graves. The American part is maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission (and has seperate offices), the rest is maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but contains monuments and graves to many services (including the Royal Hospital). At this moment in time such an undertaking is frought with difficulties because of the way Wikipedia is administered, one of the reasons I am hesitant in doing anything about it. JHvW 20:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright
Brookwood Cemetery can easily be reached by train. When you exit the station you immediately enter the cemetery. There is also a sign stating clearly that Brookwood Cemetery is private property and that the taking of photographs is strictly limited to those with a permit. On the permit it is clearly stated that publication of such photographs is in need of written permission of the owners of the cemetery. Yet I see pictures in the article where no such permission is granted. Some of the pictures I have uploaded to illustrate French Cemeteries have been removed as they are in violation (in the opinion of the community) of the principle of Freedom of panorama. Why is this any different? The fact that the cemetery is accessible by the public does not mean it is public property. It is clearly stated that the cemetery is private property. IMHO the published pictures are a clear violation of copyright. JHvW 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the images are from 2006 and 2007 it is likely that such restrictions were not in force then. The military bit is run by the CWGC and as far as I know does not have any rules against photographs. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. That means that facts need to be verifiable. The statement "it is likely that such restrictions were not in force then" is speculative, this needs to be verified by an acceptable source and that source should be named as is usual in Wikipedia. Until that time these images should be considered improper and at least remarked out. It is common courtesey to ask the permission of those who may retain the depiction right. If no personal details are shown, this permission is usually granted as it can probably be considered "fair use".
 * As to the copyright of images of the Military Cemetery, this is a different matter. The monuments in this area of the cemetery are probably covered by Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) . I say probably because:
 * a) I am not a specialist in Law
 * b) I am not a British National
 * Section 62 does not apply to individual headstones or other gravemarkers in a civilian cemetery. On a final note: those not familiar with the abbreviation CWGC, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is probably meant.
 * JHvW 21:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * " There is also a sign stating clearly that Brookwood Cemetery is private property and that the taking of photographs is strictly limited to those with a permit. On the permit it is clearly stated that publication of such photographs is in need of written permission of the owners of the cemetery. Yet I see pictures in the article where no such permission is granted."

A) How do you know that no such permission is granted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.245.113 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

When I visited Brookwood Cemetery in April 2012, when I applied for a photography permit, a person claiming to be the legal representative of the cemetery, explained the procedure to me. He apologised for being so strict but that many pictures had been published on the internet (such as in Wikipedia) without their consent. They feel it is their duty to protect the bereaved. Publishing photographs without permission can be hurtful to those left behind. I do not think this attitude of the cemetery is unreasonable. JHvW 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Brookwood Cemetery: N 51.299872 W  0.63318

The key change is from E to W or positive number to negative number for the Longitude.

\121.73.178.34 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Alan Jamieson

—121.73.178.34 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for pointing out the error, which is regrettably a common one. Deor (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Menin Gate substitute during WW2
From Menin Gate:

"Following the Menin Gate Memorial opening in 1927, the citizens of Ypres wanted to express their gratitude towards those who had given their lives for Belgium's freedom. As such, every evening at 20:00, buglers from the local fire brigade close the road which passes under the memorial and sound the 'Last Post'. Except for the occupation by the Germans in World War II when the daily ceremony was conducted at Brookwood Military Cemetery, in Surrey, England, this ceremony has been carried on uninterrupted since 2 July 1928. On the evening that Polish forces liberated Ypres in the Second World War, the ceremony was resumed at the Menin Gate despite the fact that heavy fighting was still taking place in other parts of the town."

Should this be mentioned here? JDAWiseman (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is "Clarke (2006)"?
What is the publication referred to under the sfn of 'Clarke (2006)'? It is not clear from the Further Reading list, although I notice one of John Clarke's publications has no publication year against it.Cloptonson (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Own question answered. I found from articles on the London Necropolis Company and the London Necropolis Railway that it is the 4th edition (2006) of his work The London Necropolis Railway (the first edition (pre 2000) of which is mentioned in Further Reading).Cloptonson (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable graves
Redrose64 removed some graves listed in the article on the rationale that some of the individuals don't meet the notability criteria. AFAIK, the WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON guidelines apply to articles, not specific statements within articles. I would depute that all of these people are not notable - many just don't have an article yet. Also, there are sources that can support the inclusion of the information in the article because they are important in the context of the cemetery.

All these graves are discussed in John M Clarke, London's Necropolis: A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery Hardcover, 2004. Many of these graves are listed buildings based on their historical merit. These graves are listed as significant on these pages:   (of course random websites are not that reliable). Abdul Rahman bin Andak has is own article on the Malaysian wikipedia.

I propose this information is reinstated and each person should be considered on a case by case basis.--TimSC (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It happened because of the addition of the grave of Horatia Nelson Johnson, apparently one of Horatio Nelson's granddaughters. Notability is not inherited: Nelson is notable, his descendants are not unless they can satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON other than as merely being a descendant of Horatio. The section is not titled "List of graves", but "Notable graves", so each entry must demonstrate notability, either by having a link to a Wikipedia article about that grave or person, or by having references which would satisfy WP:GNG should such an article be created. Without this, it could decline into a list of everybody buried at Brookwood. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are still applying notability guidelines to the content of an article, which is not relevant WP:NNC. The list title is "notable graves" (and to be considered within the context of the article), not "notable people with graves". In any case, the removed names mostly are notable and need to be gone through on a case by case basis. I have explained why these names are included and it is not true that any name could be added to the list.--TimSC (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit except for the removal of Horatia Nelson Johnson. I still think this should be retained but I can let that go. I noticed that List of people buried at Arlington National Cemetery has several people without links to articles. If the graves without articles are to be removed here, the ought to be removed there, but I don't think that would be met with approval.--TimSC (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't keep a watch on everything: I am aware of Arlington, but it is not on my watchlist because I've never edited it (nor have I been there) - I have edited the article on Brookwood several times before. But please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My justification for its inclusion was not based solely only this, so WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply. --TimSC (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)