Talk:Chadderton

Vandalism removed

Removed "sexiness" from article header. T-bonham (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me find the Possum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.11 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chadderton-hs.freeuk.com

An anon has recently added a note on Geoff Tootill using chadderton-hs.freeuk.com as a source. No problem with Geoff Tootill as such (other sources verify the claim), but I am a little worried about chadderton-hs.freeuk.com. This website is operated by a local group, and it has alot of dubious, even politisied unreliable content. For example this group is affiliated with Friends of Real Lancashire, and asserts some wholly incorrect statements about the use of Lancashire and former postal counties for Chadderton. Although giving the facade of being a mini encyclopedia, it has some personal commentary mixed in about Oldham Council.

I just wanted users to be aware that this is an amature website, not a completely realiable source -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chadderton Hall Park

Just a note that I've removed the following as unsourced:

Chadderton Hall Park occupies an area of 6.47 hectares in what were once the gardens of Chadderton Hall, built in 1620. From 1839 to 1860 the hall and grounds were used as a boarding school for young ladies and later a school for boys. At the end of the 19th century they were leased to Joseph Ball, who transformed the house and grounds into a pleasure garden, complete with a boating lake and a menagerie. The hall was demolished in 1939. The park is owned today by Oldham Council and was opened to the public in 1956.

I will try to find a source asap. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Demography

I noticed that were a couple of mistakes in the demography section (Royton was mentioned once and the population was given as 55,234). This was a result of using another article's demography section, but I doubled checked the rest of the figures and everything else is right. Nev1 (talk)

It's OK, I've done that before myself (Abram, Greater Manchester comes to mind!). Everything seems to check out now yes! Once I've tackled the Economy section I'll be looking for a copyeditor and then might go to GAC... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Transport

The image states that the canal and motorway were opened on different dates - but I do not think the canal retains its original layout at this location. There is no towpath here, and the washwalls are modern. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right on reflection. Any suggestions how to word it? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would just add a remark to the effect that the construction of the M60 caused the path of the (restored) canal to be deviated slightly. It isn't much, the canal ran pretty much along a slight curve (just imagine the M60 isn't there). You can see it at old maps, just go to Chadderton (lancs and furness) and 389500 by 403100. The Rochdale canal article is quite poor so I don't expect you'd find a reference in there, however a quick search on t'internet may yield a result, it was only restored quite recently. There is no towpath under the motorway, you have to cross a footbridge over the motorway, and then walk over a road. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, scrolling north along that map reveals a Barracks alongside the canal. Pre-police I should think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Barracks? Hmmm... that's a new one on me. Maybe it was yeomanry? Haven't seen mention of a barracks in my reads (although there was a POW camp in WW2).

I think I know where I can get clarification about the canal... I've a book on the M60 knocking around somewhere.... sad I know, forgive me! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hill fort

This is mentioned briefly, and is a little... vague for my taste. Do Lawson & Johnson say what kind of hill fort? Is it a hill fort or a fort on a hill? Stepping into the realms of WP:OR, caer means fortress (eg: Caerleon, the site of a Roman legionary fortress, is Celtic for "fortress of the legions"); -tun suffixes mean settlements/farmsteads etc. This would then appear to mean a fortified settlement, rather than a hill fort. (aside: -dun suffixes in OE mean hill). Moreover, hill forts are mainly found in the south of England, although not exclusively. Has this "hill fort" been looked for? If it was Iron Age, it would be very important and deserves more of a mention; Greater Manchester doesn't have a great deal of Iron Age heritage, and I think the closest we have to a hill fort is at Mellor (which could also be an oppida). Nev1 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also shamefully stepping into the realms of OR here... purely my (very bold) theory, but I actually believe that Chadderton was the original name of Oldham. Why? Well, firstly there's a reference (in the Governance section) that asserts "the boundaries of Chadderton have varied from time to time", whilst also the Anglo-Celtic name Chadderton pre-dates the Norse name Oldham by several hundred years. Also, Chadderton (hill-settlement) doesn't really lie on a hill, and if there was a hill fort, anyone in their right mind would build it at the higher more defensible ridge that is now Oldham (just see the image in the Geography section to see how it dominates Chadderton). Also, there's a kind of historical beef between Oldham and Chadderton (which persists today), even in the High Middle Ages, particularly about boundaries and lordship, which I believe stems from earlier times - when the Danes/Vikings muscled their way into the area and established their "Auldhulme" on the hill, thus forcing Anglo-Saxon Chadderton to secede some acrage to these new comers. Indeed, there were detached parts of Chadderton (like Hollinwood and Copster Hill) in what is now Oldham, which to me suggests that Oldham expanded outwards to cut these places off from the main core of Chadderton (why else would it have detached parts?).

Anyway... if that appears in a book in the future, it's my idea!!!

I have the Lawson and Johnson books on my shelf, which I'll sift through tomorrow. It's definately in the book, and I suspect it may have been a slight misinterpretation/misunderstanding on Lawson and Johnson's part. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are the quotes:

The name Streetbridge suggests that the Romans marched through the area, whilst the the name, derived from Chadertun - the settlement of the hill-fort - indicates Celtic and Anglo-Saxon influences

— Looking Back at Chadderton, page 3

...and from the same authors, but 7 years on:

Its name is believed to derive from 'Caderton', a combination of Celtic and Anglo Saxon elements indicating the 'settlement of the hill fort'

— Images of England: Chadderton, page 7

"Hill-fort" is used, but like you suggest, I think it's not a hill fort as understood in technical terms, but more like a fortified place in the hills. What do you think? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hill forts, in the technical sense, are usually Iron Age (although there was some later reoccupation). The derivation they use still looks a bit suspect, I'd like to see exactly which part they think means "hill", but it's a published source so it will have to do. I think we should clarify in the article that it means "fort on the hill" rather than the potentially misleading hill fort which conjures images of Danebury and Maiden Castle. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course I put it in the article in an attempt to mirror the source material - wasn't aware that the term had specific meaning. This is a good call. I'll alter the wording slightly so as to avoid any confusion and upset. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Labor omnia vincit

Currently Chadderton #Governance translates "Labor omnia vincit" as "Persistent Works Triumphs". This translation sounds implausible to me: for one thing, the English is not grammatical. I'm no Latin expert, but it looks to me like it says "Hard work conquers all". Does the source really give that translation? If not, how about changing it? Eubulides (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This tallys well with this source, which uses "Labour conquers all", and this source, which uses "Work conquers everything". From memory I believe the reference was sourced from Lozleader (talk · contribs) who added it to verify the composition and origins of the coat of arms, rather than the motto. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Page 31 of Lawson's (1990) Looking Back at Chadderton has the translation of the motto as "Labour conquers everything". --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change

As a novice to Wikipedia,I would like to learn how to edit an existing page of Chadderton. For the industrial revolution history I have tried below to inserting a reference to machine-breaking described by GDH Cole in the classic text cited below. If I knew how to edit then I would also insert Cole's description of a Chadderton riot.

The construction of multi-storey steam powered mills followed, which initiated a process of urbanisation and cultural transformation in the region; the population increasingly moved away from farming and domestic weaving in favour of the mechanised production of cotton goods.[11]

During this early period of change, Chadderton's parliamentary representation was limited to two Members of Parliament for Lancashire. Nationally, the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had resulted in periods of famine and unemployment for textile workers,and years of distress and unrest although major disturbances of machine-breaking did not take place until 1826. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chl mason (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 June 2012‎ (UTC))

I think I've added the text you wanted to add in the correct place, and hopefully that'll help you to understand how Wikipedia's admittedly arcane citation system works. There are gadgets you might find helpful such as ProveIt, which you can install easily from Your preferences, although to be honest I've never found any of them to be all that much use. Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

References

FA criteria

The article is flagged as needing an update since 2014. Does it still meet the FA criteria? (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is still unaddressed (2011 census is not addressed outside of a table). There is also uncited text scattered throughout, and the economy section may not be current. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)