Talk:Oldham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Visit Oldham

I have reverted this page to remove the text from http://www.visitoldham.co.uk/heritage/famous.htm
I will try to use this page as a source for expanding our own article.
SimonMayer 11:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questionable reference:

This was listed in the people section of the article "* Many people of the Islamic Faith New Pakistan"

I personally do not believe this should be listed in this section despite its vague truth. It is not a person and is likely to cause offence. I'm not sure how it was listed here. I have temporarily removed it so it doesn't cause trouble. If anyone else has feelings on this please feel free to note them here, if it is required we can have a vote on the issue. As an Oldhamer myself I feel I am in a strong position to advise against making such references especially considering the towns history of racism. Thanks. --SFO 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a result of your self proclaimed censorship I cannot now read the article you find offensive even though you say it is based in truth. As an Oldhamer myself, I would be interested to absorb all points of view on the town, its history etc from a truthful point of view. Not just from the point of view of those people / organisations who take it upon themselves to allow the rest of us to only access the sanitised version of history. Don't take it personally but I am aggreived that we are always told what we can and can't read / say / discuss in this town for fear of upsetting a person / group. Perhaps one day the town will be more united by virtue of everyone being able to speak freely and not hold misinformed views because we only have access to half the story?--RALL 13:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You can read that edition of the article here [1]. It's in the 'People' section. I have to say I agree with SFO, it is totally out of place, and probably racially motivated. Yet I agree with you on the free speech matter in general, progress in the community can't be made without people being able to air their views; BUT, having said that, this is an encyclopedia and should give facts and information about Oldham - it's not the place for people to comment from their own opinion. There are many more useful and appropriate places for this. M A Mason 13:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

POV statements

"It is however regarded as one of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in the country."

As an Oldhamer. I have no idea where this totally idiotic statement comes from. I would be surprised to find anyone who knows more than 2 Nigerians in this town and as for "most dangerous" what poppycock. It's as bad as most urban towns. No better, no worse.

Also as an Oldhamer I agree the Nigerian population is not "large" by any means but the comment about it being "one of the most dangerous" towns is entirely true I'm afraid. Yorkshire Street on a weekend evening recently polled as the second most dangerous street in the country.

All POV and as such has no place in an encyclopedic article. If anyone can find a credible reference for it being one of the most dangerous neighbourhoods then by all means put it back. M A Mason 16:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is all POV, this is the discussion section of the site, not the encyclopedic section. I.E. the place to discuss points, opinions POV?

Yeah it was in the article so I moved it here for discussion. I think we may as well just delete it though; theres no way of even toning it down. M A Mason 12:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm completely lost now. I cannot find the original story from which I could have drawn my own conclusions. I tried the original link and your new link to no avail. The problem with removing things (as 'appears' to have happened with the original story) is the age old one regarding censorship. As soon as one is told one cannot read something it gains an added curiosity value by virtue of the censorship itself. I wasn't so interested before the references were removed but now I'm convinced I need to read it! Maybe the best thing all round is to remove the whole reference to the original article. Rewriting history I know but the original history appears to have been rewritten already? RALL.

Population and recent edits

I have repeatedly had to revert the population figure over the last few days - the population given at the moment links to the list, where the figure is taken from (list KS01, from the Office of National Statistics). It is daft to change the figure and have it linking to a list which it no longer tallies with!

If you find another population figure that refers to some other area other than what is being used now, please add it in a separate sentence saying where it refers to and explicitly citing your source.

Further reverts of the population figure that don't give sources could well be seen as wilfully obstructive.

Also, please do not remove material (eg, removing Mike Ford and Barrie McDermott) just because it is red-linked; it helps encourage people to write new articles, and contributes useful information.

Ah I see, I'd kept out of it, not being particularly knowledgeable about populations. I'll keep an eye it myself from now on. I'll add a message to the article telling people to read the discussion first. M A Mason 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The offical census population for Oldham is 103,544 and comes form the 2001 Census publications Key Statistics for urban areas in England and Wales Table KS01 ( released 17 June 2004). Where do you get the population of 157,545 from? CLICK HERE TO VERIFY MY FACTS BY DOWNLOADING THE SPREADSHEET LINK GIVEN BY THE ONS--Statsfan 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that Statsfan, it's good to know someone else is keeping an eye on it too! I changed theater -> theatre because (1) -re is the correct spelling of the institution in Oldham (2) -re is the British English spelling which should be used according to the MoS in UK articles. Aquilina 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Riots "caused by football hooligans"

To the person who wrote this section, please provide any evidence that this is remotely correct.

Around 1999-2000 and including 2001 there were many reports of "gangs of asians" attacking single white people, notably around Manchester St Roundabout and famously the old rugby fan of 80+ yrs who was viciously assaulted. He was attacked with his own metal flask. (Walter something?)

These were taken up locally and nationally by the BNP increasing their presence and political activity as a result. These were some of the factors involved, not fanciful notions of football hooligans smashing up asians properties.

Again, back up the statement with facts or don't publish it.

Schools in Oldham

I noticed the section on Schools in Oldham, I firstly altered this to reflect the colleges it also has it it's list, but would like to propose they are actually moved from this page to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham page.

The reasoning behind this is a simple one; many of the schools are not in Oldham itself, but in it's suburbs/satelite towns. An example is Crompton House is in Shaw and Crompton and North Chadderton School is of course in Chadderton - both not in Oldham.

Alternatively, perhaps the context of the term of Schools in Oldham should be made clearer so it stipulates the wider borough?

Furthermore, the schools included are those that are secondary ones, currently omitting primary schools. Should this also be made a little clearer?

Does anybody concur with these suggestions? More importantly, does anyone disagree?! Please indicate below. Thanks, Jhamez84 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. This is how I'd go about it:

1. Move the full list as currently in the Oldham article to the MBO article. Make clear these are secondary schools.
2. Put a list on each borough article of the schools in that area (ie Bluecoat in the Schools section of Oldham, Crompton House in a (new) Schools section on Shaw and Crompton etc.)
3. Above each of these individual borough lists, put a redirect to the full list at the MBO article- I have something like this in mind

This is a list of schools in Royton; for schools in the rest of the borough, see the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article

That should cover most bases, and give more room in the individual borough articles for full coverage of primary schools etc. (Anyone fancy getting the list out of the phone book out and doing all those?!)

Let me know what you think! Aquilina 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Scatty

This article needs a bit of a clean up and some of the facts beefed out because it reads quite badly, like a list of facts. But alas I don't really frequent oldham that much so I wouldn't know. Benjaminstewart05 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldham - Owl-Town? And a Revamp!

Just a quick message about the Oldham article. I agree with the previous comment that the article is in need of a well thought-out clean up and revamp to bring it inline with other English town articles (see Huddersfield and Southport - even the Shaw and Crompton article is arguabley better at current!).

The article does read very badly and is over complicated and needs better section titles. Oldham has a rich history and prominent place in the industrial revolution and cotton spinning, yet there is little content on this. Furthermore it would be nice to include more about Oldham prior to the cotton boom, i.e. it's very origins and reason for it's name and existence!

What I am asking here is that the Oldham article needs some attention to it's history and heritage content. I I understand that the name Oldham comes from the Anglo-Saxon for Owl-Town (hence Chaddy the Owl and the various owl icons around the town).

Can anyone verify this (just check that it is indeed Anglo-Saxon and not celtic or Roman or otherwise derived)? I think the photographs also need a serious revamp (look again at the panoramic photos on both Huddersfield and Shaw and Crompton as examples, and then look at Oldhams photo of mumps bridge (!?)). Manchester also includes it's heraldric emblem of a Bee, perhaps Oldham should include a good example of the Owl emblem, given that it has a historic significance???

If I was to look up Oldham in the encyclopedia Brittanica, I would certainly hope that the current Wikipedia page and content would NOT be there!! I trust readers of this will also agree!

Many thanks, Jhamez84 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that this message has not been responded to, which is unfortunate, but there has been some improvements to the article since I originally posted it. However, I will leave the main article alone for a while yet still to see if an Oldham resident is more inclined to improve the page first. To aid in this process, I have since found this page outlining Oldham's history and development.

I'm also proposing that the Famous People section be either shortened, or redirected to the Oldhamers category. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

'Owl-town' reference has been removed; I've put in more verifiable info gleaned from place-name books. --Sunholm(talk) 09:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had to remove this info. I've since found a source about Oldham, which stipulated otherwise. Jhamez84 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Revamp

I've totally overhalled/revamped the article as I outlined above. I believe it is a vast improvement including a beautiful photograph by Matthew Rees, and much more attention to Oldham's industrial past.

There are some gaps/stubs which need more attention yet. And it would be great to get some more photographs - particularly old ones, of the cotton mill metropolis it was during the 19th century say.

I hope it is to everyone's liking! (certainly better than the local rivals Rochdale article). Jhamez84 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite is fantastic, I must congratulate you on it :) M A Mason 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chip Shop

According to the article in it's current form, Oldham lays claim to being the home to the first ever "Chip Shop". I've tagged this as requiring a citation, as I think it is a rather bold statement, and requires some elaboration and a good source.

I've made some preliminary searches on Google to back up the statement, but have found nothing of this nature. I did find:

"There are rival claims to being the first fish and chip shop. The northern claim is in Mossley, near Oldham, Lancashire, in 1863: a Mr Lees sold fish and chips from a wooden hut in the market and later transferred the business to a permanent shop across the road which advertised itself as the first fish and chip shop across the world."

This was taken from The History of the National Dish, and may be the source of the confusion (i.e. that the Chip Shop existed in the seperate town of Mossley).

I'll leave the statement in for a few weeks, but if nobody can verify this, I'll have to remove the section as per WP:V. Jhamez84 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have actually read about this somewhere a while back, but I can't put my finger on it. I'll keep looking out. DShamen 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a blue plaque at Tommyfield Market commemorating the 'first' chip shop, and before I looked into this and made some changes, the wording on this plaque was being presented almost verbatim in the article, as if it established Oldham's claim as fact. I already knew of Joseph Malin, the 'Mossley claim' came to light in the course of my (admittedly cursory) research. I think the source was the same as quoted above. There's also a tradition claiming the first chip shop in Yeadon, West Yorkshire, but the date usually quoted is too late (1870-ish) for this claim to stand up to scrutiny. HTH at least a bit. Guy Hatton 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get a photograph of this plaque? Or failing this, check the local history books... I just see it as being an objectional entry for someone in the future, particularly as it is such an important step in the fast-food/catering/traditional English cuisine fields; I'm sure editors from other rival chippy origin towns may raise this sooner rather than later as Wikipedia's online significance and presence grows.

Any citation and photographs would only improve the article further, and I would encourage anyone to come forth with suggestions and content for our beloved town! Jhamez84 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go (see article)! Ultimate-sapere-aude 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Riots eclipsed sectarian conflict in NI?

The old wording said of the 2001 riots in Oldham:

"the Oldham Riots were the worst racially-motivated riots in the United Kingdom for fifteen years prior, eclipsing the sectarian violence seen in Northern Ireland."

This statement was followed by a reference to the Ritchie report.

I simply do not believe that anyone thinks the riots "eclipsed" NI's sectarian troubles in the sense of rendering them insignificant by comparison! I think this sentence probably menat to put across the idea that the riots were the worst riots for fifteen years apart from the sectarian violence seen in Northern Ireland.

I've changed the sentence accordingly but thought I'd mention it here as this is the sort of section likely to be controversial....

--Casper Gutman 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha - I found the relevant section in the Ritchie report, and it does indeed state "eclipsing", but the paraphrasing in the sentence I quoted above is very misleading. The intention in the report was only to say that for once the NI troubles were eclipsed in the sense that the riots briefly had more prominence in the media. This needed to be clarified IMHO. --Casper Gutman 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Current status

The article is looking good in it's current form but still behind that of Manchester and Shaw and Crompton. Some sections are still just stubs and require a collaborative effort to improve these parts. I've found this, this, this and this internet page, which together would undoubtedly provide facts of historical significance. I'll try to include some of the content, but would welcome other users to provide other such information also and help search through these external links for interesting points to include. Many thanks, Jhamez84 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the genesis.ac.uk link above, as their address format has changed. broken link - new link. Zarius 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

County borough

How can Oldham be "historically part of Lancashire" when as a county borough (before absorbtion into GMCC) it was never part of Lancashire proper?-- this is at odds with the article on Bury which sytes it was a Conyty Borough and part of Lancashire administartively?Pandaplodder 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely county boroughs were only invented in 1889? Oldham could perhaps have been a part of Lancs prior to that? Casper Gutman 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, the Bury article is wrong - I'll try to tackle this if nobody else has. Casper Gutman is correct however, Oldham formed part of Lancashire before the 1889 local government re-organisation; the Historic counties of England don't correlate, for the most part, with the Administrative counties of England, which in turn have nothing to do with the contemporary Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England. Jhamez84 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember the County Boroughs might have had a separate council, police force etc but there was never any thought that they were not part of Lancashire unlike all the empire building by Great Manchester now where some people appear to get very upset at any mention of Lancashire. --jmb 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but the fact remains that county boroughs were not part of administrative counties, and as an encyclopedia article, we should write to reflect this accuracy. This arrangement of excemption from counties explains why for almost a century, Lees, Greater Manchester formed an enclave of administrative Lancashire, as it was wedged between Oldham county borough and the West Riding of Yorkshire.

I think this is why we should continue to adopt the style taken in lead, that Oldham was historically part of Lancashire. Jhamez84 13:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The REAL history of Oldham: Cotton Mills etc

I find it somewhat disheartening how, on a supposed 'free' medium as 'Wikipedia', history has been re-written once again. I'm sick of reading about how Oldham was once a 'boomtown'- yeah for the Aristocracy/Rothschilds- but NOT for the normal, working-class people who were born there!

People (including children) had to work as slaves in the Cotton Mills, for 12-16 hours a day; and they were treated like animals. We always read about black slavery, but what about white slavery? They were both as bad as each other. Revisionists like to pretend that the people of Oldham were once affluent, and had a good standard of living- it's at least implied anyway.

Have a look here then: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IToldham.htm and http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRchild.htm . Even there they speak mainly of 'child labour'- not slavery- and gloss over how the adults suffered too. They had wretched lives. The mortality rate was shocking, and their standard of 'food' was appalling. Families were separated, the workers weren't permitted to talk whilst toiling, children were mercilessly beaten etc etc.

PLEASE people, research the TRUE past of Oldham- and learn what our ancestors had to go through.

If we don't know our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Respect those dear people who endured so much, for the sakes of the greedy, inhumane monsters (bloodlines) who exploited them. ALL slavery is wrong. So many people have suffered in Oldham, almost in vain it seems. It's shocking how I saw the mills in the late 1970s, yet was taught NOTHING about their dark, abhorrent history.

From an ex-Oldhamer.

(I didn't know anything about the conditions that they had to endure, until about 1998 (via the Internet).)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRAISINMAN (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2007

There was abuse in mills of course, but it wasn't limited to Oldham by any means. Abuse by certain cotton giants on a certain section of the community, during a certain section of time across mill towns of the whole of northern England doesn't in my veiw really belong in an article about Oldham as a whole (certain fort/castle/battle-site towns are sites to horrific torture and barbarity, but it's just not encyclopedic in a geography class article.

On the term "boomtown", this is verifiable, and coined about Oldham in multiple scholarly and third-party publications. Assuming you have proper source material, information about child labour and workforce abuse may be more suitable for the Mill town or Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution articles.

Please sign your comments too in future for the benefit of the editting community. Jza84 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been plenty of books on the subject for many years. Conditons were bad but they did improve as various Factory Acts were brought in through the 19th Century. Don't forget that things were worse in rural areas and people moved to the towns for work, often over long distances. Many of these "bettered" themselves and the building society system was started so people could own their own houses. Some of the mill owners were quite benevolent also and provided good housing etc for their workers. --jmb 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the word slavery implies they were denied their freedom and concidered property which is blatantly not true. There were just no rules regarding workers age, safety, or comfort like we have today. If you didn't like the conditions you had to work in you weren't beaten or locked up, you were just sacked. This unfortunately also meant you were homeless, so common sense dictated you just had to put up with it. ~~ Peteb16 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Semantics really, and to be honest a tad flippant. They were in a catch-22 situation: if they didn't agree to be bonded to the factory, they weren't permitted to enter. Women had to bond their children to the factories because they couldn't afford to eat etc. My point was really just to illustrate that Oldham's past isn't quite as rosy as people like to make out. Don't forget that your seal of bondage was legally binding- it was an extremely brutal system. Anyway, I've made my point, I'm not here to cause trouble. (Sorry about not 'signing' before- I'm new to this) TheRAISINMAN 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There were rules, might not seem much by our standards but they did gradually improve. The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act came in 1802 forbidding employment of children under nine as apprentices and a maximum 12 hour day for children. In 1825 the Cotton Mills Regulation Act imposes a 12 hour day for workers under 16. The Factory Act 1833 forbid labour for children under nine and set a 9 hour day for those under 13. Might not sound much but all were achievements for the time and there were further ones after then. --jmb 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Furthermore, looking at books like "Oldham and its People", and "The Changing Face of Crompton", the Oldham area with it's busy inter-town tramways, impressive town hall, newly built parish church, thousands upon thousands of brand new houses, its quaint butchers and suited children, looks more prosperous at the turn of the last century than it does now. In terms of economics, this was a true boomtown, as suggested by a great many sources. Of course there was poverty, abuse, unfit housing and unsavoury businessmen, but that's still true of 21st century Oldham let's not forget. I do commend RAISINMAN for being bold however as a newcomer, and although I think we have a relatively balanced article here, I would welcome improvements and expansion to the article anyway. Jza84 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)