Talk:St John Ambulance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:St. John Ambulance)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Organizations (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Lots of work needed to include information on all the varrious international areas, etc. I put a link to a page on ranks and insignia. Glenlarson 05:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a common problem with an article which can mean different things to different people. When I first wrote the article for wikipedia, it was to replace a stub which said very little. Since then, the article has grown a lot, and different people have put their own spins on it. The danger is that it will grow too broad, and end up saying a little about everything rather than being concise. Already people have started putting links to randon division homepages which serve little to benefit the article as a whole. Generally people searching for information on St. John Ambulance will be those who have had contact through meeting members in various guises. IMHO the various quirks of the Orders and priories around the world will be of less importance. With the wikipedia article we need to make sure it doesn't get too bogged down in details that are uniquely specific to a particular priory, group or unit. petemorris.

As I understand things, the discussion page is important to articles, to ensure information is in agreement with varrious contributors. Other than the note from the aussie member, mine was the first on the discussion or talk page.
St John is international in its nature, and the article needs to be edited to reflect this, including the use of the term brigade, which seams to be used in many other countries. Many articles are written from the perspective of a major country, but over time, hopefully this will be corrected through more international editing.
Currently, I am simply adding content, thus the page and link to rank insignia.
There is still a strong paramilitary affiliation in the international St John Ambulance.
Further editing is needed as the article is currently specific to a particular priory.Glenlarson 06:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've re-structured the article somewhat to prepare it for a more international feel. Unfortunately this means that most priories other than England are now pretty lacking, but I don't see any other way of allowing for such a variety of international differences.
Hopefully people from each respective priory will start filling out their sections.

I think the Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe (German equivalent) should be mentioned in some way, although not affiliated, because it was instead founded from the German descendant order to the Knights Hospitaller, but of course is their St John Ambulance. Perhaps a second colour could be used on the map for equivalent organisations of shared ancestory? (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential split[edit]

The article has now grown to a level where it is potentially too long to be a single article anymore. The obvious solution for this would be to split it into priories/countries, so leave sections 1,2, 11-13 in place, and remove 3-10 into seperate articles linked to from this main article.

If anyone has any objections or thoughts on this then discuss it here.

No one has yet objected to this comment, and so I will assume that people agree it would be good to split the single article into more specific articles for each country. If anyone does have any major objections, please say so now. 2006-08-11
I've now split the article as suggested. This should allow different countries to develop their own articles specific to each country, as the number of quirk differences was getting too big. Please only add to this article material which is internation in nature. petemorris 2006-08-29

What do they do?[edit]

There is nothing in the article saying what this group does, exept for "teaching and practice of medical first aid". From the picture, I guess they run ambulances, but I'm not sure. --Apoc2400 07:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's far too much about the Order of St John, which the article admits has very little to do with St John Ambulance - the article really needs splitting, or the historical stuff toning down. I'll take a look at it later - what the organisation does in the UK is provide first-aiders (including ambulances) at public events, and train first-aiders. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We should split up all the stuff about the order and put it into that article. SJA from a worldwide sense is mostly about First Aid; teaching courses is the one common element everywhere; the brigade is the other. everything else is limited to only specific countries, so we must be careful to mention that. We should keep this article short and limit it to the worldwide commonalities; everything else should be on the country-specific pages. Joezasada 05:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
At least in the UK St John Ambulance does just that, first aid training, first aid at public events, and providing patient transport / emergency transport (Acting as an emergency ambulance in incidents where there are not enough NHS ambulances available) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely true, there are a number of care homes around the UK which are run by St John Ambulance. Fees are charged and staff are certainly not volunteers. Richard Avery (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Such as? Thecaketin (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also worth remembering that SJA's own market research reported that only 1% of the population recognised them as a charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A Dot ? ... or Not ?[edit]

We need to come to an understanding, something we can all agree to live with. There is continuous addition/removal of a simple little dot that is becoming a distraction to actual editing.

As I see it, we have several options:

  1. St. with a dot, like the Article title
  2. St without a dot, like British corporate image
  3. St. and a preamble explaining the naming situation
  4. St and a preamble explaining the naming situation

What is your opinion and reasoning? Exit2DOS2000TC 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was formerly in favour of retaining the dot in this article, as this was how the Order of St John's website, which as far as I'm aware is the nearest thing to a central SJA website, rendered the name (example here). The Order's website seems to have recently been revamped and now uses the dotless version throughout - for example, see here - as well as the dotless logo now shown in the infobox, which is now used by several national associations. (Note that the Order's website and its corporate branding are distinct from those of SJA England.) However, doing a quick survey of the 16 national websites listed on the latter page, seven use the dot and nine don't. Given this lack of unanimity I think that deferring to the Order's usage is probably the most neutral compromise for the article title, but we should certainly mention that many national associations use the dot. --Kwekubo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In formal British English, where the Order of St John is based, St is the abbreviated form of Saint, whilst St. is the abbreviation of Street. This is due to the former consisting of the first and last letter of Saint, whilst the latter uses the first two letters of Street. I would favor the fourth suggestion of St and a preamble explaining the naming situation Cwd24 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me revive this discussion: Wikipedia style (and common understanding) is to use the official form. That would have been St. John in the past and is St John now. Unfortunately a simple move is not possible, because the targetname is already a redirection with history. I will see, how this is done. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:St John New Zealand logo.svg[edit]

The image Image:St John New Zealand logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture[edit]

The latest incarnation of Doctor Who's TARDIS bares a St. John's Ambulance seal on the entry door. Citation needed.

Lex0nyc (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So did the original ( it disappeared for a while PoisonedPigeon (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

move discussion at Talk:St._John_Ambulance_in_Hong_Kong[edit]

FYI. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

St. John AmbulanceSt John Ambulance — The official name now omits the full stop, per discussion above. Kwekubo (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It was me (Tomdo08 (talk)) who stated that the official name is St John Ambulance. I thought to be smart to circumvent the problems of:
  • references opposed to own name
  • names opposed to brandings
  • titles of websites
  • writings in unusual font
  • flashy text
  • different names in subgroupings
  • different name in different places
But it appears I was not smart enough (or too sleepy). I am not sure where I looked up the official name yesterday. Generally on websites I go for the imprint, for a self description in long text, also for addresses of official bodies. Another good source are official registries or trustworthy secondary sources.
Today I read the online self description:
St John Ambulance is a Foundation of the Order of St John and is a leading first aid, transport and care charity. It has a global membership of approximately 250,000 in 39* countries and has diversified to meet local community needs around the world. In addition to first aid activities, it has developed ophthalmic and dental care, primary health care, youth programmes, relief work, disaster planning and HIV/AIDS services.
St. John Ambulance also provides the statutory ambulance service in some of its territories.
To learn more about their work, click on the links below.
St John Ambulance in ...
Originally I sought for the naming of the order. That gives similar results. I am weeping. And I am looking for further sources. Maybe writing an email is a good idea.
Also it might be the case that the official name of the order comprises Saint John and all derivations and abbreviations are completely unofficial. Then we have to look for another rule; that should be the British rule for abbreviation of "saint", I would say.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
However the outcome might be, the text in the article should follow the naming of the page and it should carry a short note like "sometimes called ...". This note should be in addition to noting differences in international naming and suborganisation naming. Sub- and sister-organisations should have their own writing even if it is different. Of course those writings might be disputable, too... -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When written, the name almost always includes the fullstop. I don't know why this convention has come to be, but the organisation is unique and the usage rules which apply to it don't necessarily apply to other uses of the St/St./Saint prefix in English usage... compare for example to Saint Peter or Saint Andrew, but it would be wrong to write this title as Saint John Ambulance. The discussion above is mostly irrelevant in terms of WP:NC, see Wikipedia:official names for any essay exploring and attempting to clarify this much-misunderstood aspect of the policy. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "...the name almost always includes the fullstop", that is the thing in question. It appears to possibly not being true.
  • Also the discussion is not about exclusively using the official name: After all other considerations being inconclusive, it would have been an easy decision maker. And, as I said, I wood prefer either "St John Ambulance" or "St. John Ambulance", even if the (unused) official name would be "Saint John Ambulance".
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment doesn't Wikipedia already have something about the difference between UK English and rest of the world re omission of periods in abbreviated names? (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This, at first, is not about abbreviating a name, but about the abbreviation already being part of the name.
  • It might be the case that there is no such dedicated name. Then indeed language rules might be applied. However, there are still other considerations like for example "most common use" or "use in longest part of history".
  • English is not divided in UK English and rest of the world, there are several variants of English. Also UK English is not lower-ranking. In this case it would even have highest priority, since the organisation in question is UK-based and UK-originating. However, there would be the question which UK English to prioritise: Modern one or some older variant.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose it most certainly does include a period. And the UK is not the totality of the locations that this organization exists in. (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "most certainly" is wrong. Please refer to the material above.
  • Nobody here is UK-biased and nobody here wants to write about the UK-part of the organisation. Also, initially, this is not about language preferences at all. However, since there appear to be differences in writing internationally and the organisation is based in and originates from UK, UK English spelling should be first choice, if general language spelling rules come into consideration.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose - looking in their current Canadian training manuals publication info ... it includes the dot ( I took the course last week :P ) ISBN 1-894070-56-9 Exit2DOS CtrlAltDel 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • St. John Ambulance Canada, indeed, seems to prefer St. John Ambulance (if not Ambulance Saint-Jean). But this is the Canadian branch, not the head organisation.
  • I looked for the book: Interestingly libraries seem to prefer Saint John Ambulance. And I foolishly rejected this wording at first.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is only one thing certain here: There is nothing certain. And if nobody provides real facts, this discussion will end in vain. This be said, I would like to stress some crucial points:
    • The subject of discussion is not the name of any St/St./Saint John ambulance, but the name of the international head organisation based in UK.
    • There might be no such organisation. The head might be simply the Venerable Order of Saint John.
    • The organisation itself seems to now prefer "St John Ambulance".
    • There is no neutral point for Wikipedia here: Wikipedia is read by a lot of people, and any naming decision here will either comply or resist.
    • This is not about UK English.
    • This is not about exclusively using some official name.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


This appears to me to be the logo of the order, not of St John Ambulance. See, for example, their facebook page [1]. Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

St. John AmbulanceSt John Ambulance – This is the style used by the organization on its logo and website. The name with a period should be a redirect, not the other way. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - we should have a MOS and follow it. We shouldn't be chasing the styles of other websites. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
We have. Wikipedia:MOS says "in standard British and Australian usage, no stop is used if the abbreviation ends in the last letter of the unabbreviated form". Formed in the UK, International Office in the UK. Does not use the stop in its website or any literature I have seen as a member. Also note that the national and regional sites mostly do not use the stop, and make links to this site without the stop and therefore have to be redirected Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: The organization has presences primarily in countries that use Commonwealth English spelling and punctuation norms, was founded in the UK, and is clearly intentionally not using the "." So, this qualifies to not use it on WP, per MOS:TIES, just like all the St Whatever British placename articles. Even if their US affiliate used the "." the I would argue against it in our article (except for explicit mention of that affiliate by name), since it remains primarily a Commonwealth/British institution.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I need to go research whether other sources use or omit the full stop. The official logo omits the full stop. If the sources are divided, per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, use the less surprising title, i.e. the one that omits the punctuations. It's easier to type than the present one. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Correct and standard Commonwealth English. Nothing in the MOS says we need to follow American English for non-American articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.