Talk:Joseph Crook

Modern sources with tit-bits about Crook
Quite a few modern sources have very short mentions of Crook but getting them into the article without turning it into a bullet-pointed list might be tricky. For example:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Please note that while some of these do refer to him as a "cotton spinner", what they mean is he owned a mill where cotton spinning took place. That mill was established by his father, Joshua. The idea that Crook himself spun cotton is ludicrous.

There are also hints that Crook repeatedly brought forward a bill relating to bleachers' pay etc, finally succeeding with his Short Time Act (which was part of a wider movement for short time working/half-day holidays etc in various industrial sectors). However, I am only seeing those in snippet view. I need to take a trip to Bolton Library to read the newspapers etc, perhaps - I do miss not having the British Newspaper Archive subscription. I will see what JSTOR may have first. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of note at JSTOR but I have found this, which is a treasure trove even if it does grate with me that this source also says he was a "cotton spinner". Bebbington also briefly mentions him in this, which I think was in fact published - need to find the published version.

And if we mine the sources at List of mills in Bolton + use the one above that refers to strike-breaking then I think we can crack the "cotton spinner" thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Surprising to see such agonising over the description "cotton spinner". People who run firms engaged in building are routinely described as builders without the least suggestion they get their hands dirty with bricks and mortar; so what's your alternative?  "Cotton spinning factory owner"?  Taken a step forward?  If you think so, go with it, but don't deprive people of the salient fact.  And what is your objection to the part about his receiving the honour?  Need a stack of affidavits before we can divulge this incredibly controversial piece of information?  If there were any chance you were right about this, then 90 per cent of WP would be headed for the trash.  So let's get real, please.  All you're managing to do is waste everyone's time and I for one will not be wasting any more of mine on wild goose chases.  Enjoy your time in Bolton on this ever so nearly absolute irrelevance. sirlanz 15:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is "ever so nearly absolute irrelevance" then why have you been so insistent about including it? You seem just to be trying to make a point after your initial atrocious edit here. I agree that the presentation is pretty much irrelevant to the article - they were common and the value is fairly small (I have a clock here from about the same period that was presented to a Manchester mill owner and cost about 450 gns). However, there is much of relevance that I have unearthed in the above sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people would find "cotton spinner" misleading implying a manual worker in a mill. I have relatives who were described as such on the census but they didn't own the mill, but the reference doesn't say Crook did either. J3Mrs (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly, Sitush has now produced material of the highest quality on the page, for which everyone will be grateful. Hear, hear.  But Sitush leaves some garbage in their wake which ought to be cleared up.  It seems my first edit rekindled Sitush's interest (having created the stub years ago and dropped it) and this happy outcome but is it even vaguely fair to describe that first edit as "atrocious"?  The form of Situshi's References section is excellent; WP would do well to adopt it as a standard, but I have never seen it emulated on any other page and it was for this reason that I was initially moved to convert it to what we are more accustomed to see around WP.  Sitush reverted and I did not press the point.  That, I would have thought, was a sign of a general principle of politeness but further good faith edits were met one by one by reverts, latterly with no substantive explanation other than that Sitush was upset.  No, the edit was not atrocious at all; it was a difference of opinion.  Exquisite as Sitush's work may be, some attention to their mode of interplay with fellow Wikipedians warrants some concentration and improvement. sirlanz00:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)