Talk:Cotton mill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 England 2 Redirect? 3 Cottonpolis 4 Royton Mill 5 Lacking Sources? 6 Roller Spinning machine 7 Spinning jenny and mule 8 Recent addition

[edit] England

I added some stuff to the England section and removed the stub stamp (as it now has more than the America which isn't a stub)--Whap 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does this section contiually refer to the fiber as wool, when talking about cotton mills? I would think that the manufacture of cotton would be slightly different from that of other textiles, as I thought it was originally only inported into England, and wasn't used there much until the spinning jenny in the mid 1700's, at which point making cotton cloth was no longer a cottage industry. Loggie 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the England (now Great Britian) section and removed the references to the cottage industry stage and wool. I removed the cottage industry stage because the information on processing the cotton should go in the processing the cotton section. I removed the wool parts, because cotton is not wool.

Also, I wonder if it would not be better to merge the Great Britian and United States section into a history section, as they are both history related, and it isn't as if the cotton mills in the US were all that different from those in Great Britian. Loggie 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Textile mill redirects here. Is this correct? Are there not other kinds of textiles not using cotton? -- Centrx 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were 'silk mills' (q.v. John Lombe) so there may be a need for a disambig page. Noisy | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have converted Textile mill into a disambiguation page, but this merely reveals that more articles are needed. Peterkingiron 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cottonpolis

Trying not to be biased (as it is my part of the world!), shouldn't there be a mention of (what is now) the Greater Manchester region (which was sometimes called "Cottonpolis", and "King Cotton"), specifically places like Oldham - which was the most productive cotton spinning town in the world, and Royton - which was the first town (though not settlement) where a cotton mill was built (and the place where the last was built in England). I realise there may be other regions which played a role in the evolution of the cotton mill, but I think these are fairly significant, even just for a passing mention. Thoughts? Jhamez84 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royton Mill

If Royton Mill is really the first Cotton Mill, it needs an article of its own. This should cite somethign more reliable than modern newspaper articles and websites that cite no sources. Its alleged date of 1764 is before Arkwright's patent, which makes me suspicious, particularly as Wadsworth and Mann say nothing of the subject. Peterkingiron 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to my request above, I have moved the statement about Royton Mill to a point later in the article, and added a skeptical tone to it. Peterkingiron 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jhamez84 has been making strong claims for priority in regard to Oldham, and has (quite properly) cited a number of local information sites. However, it is far from clear to me what is being claimed for Royton Mill. Is this about the spinning jenny? This certainly may have been invented as early as 1764, but the jenny was initially a manual machine which people used in their homes, not in mills. The word mill in the context of the texile industry is loosely used as a synonym for any factory. However, in an encyclpaedia it ought to be limited to its strict sense, which I would take to be an artificially machine or the building containing it. A water mill and a wind mill are the obvious cases, but it is perfectly legitimate to extend it to a horse mill and a tread mill. In each case, power is being provided from outside a machine to drive it. From the 1790s, many cotton-spinning works were steam-engine powered, and common usage naturally extended the term 'mill' to apply to them. That was evidently common usage, about which I cannot complain. However, a workshop where there were a number of manually-operated spinning jennies ought not the be called a mill.

My concern is that a number of unrelated facts (each true individually) have been brought together to produce a synthesis that is either untrue or at best misleading. The spinning jenny may have been invented in 1764 (but this is not certain); jennies were later (but not initially) operated by mills; a mill at Royton may have built in 1764 (which I do not know). I therefore ask for a thorough account of the history and acheivements of Royton Mill based on veriable academic publications. Popular information sites are all very well, but rather too liable to copy ewach other in repeating information that is in fact inaccurate. Peterkingiron 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would re-emphasise my last comment. There seems to be a gap in what is known of the advance of textile technology between the faiulure of the mills at Northampton and Leominster and the incorporation of a carding machine into Arkwright's water frame and the appearance of the scribbling mill (called elsewhere carding mill) in the Yorkshire woollen industry. Both have an origin in Lancashire, but I have been unable to discover precisely what. It may be that the claims about Royton Mill have a substantial basis, which I have not found, but what has been provided so far is merely unverified local rumour. Whether this has a substantial basis remains unclear. If it does, it needs to be incorporated into the story; if it cannot be verified, it should be deleted. Peterkingiron 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just undone the latest revision by Jhamez84, who seems to give the claims of Royton Mill undue prominence. I accept that he cites three Internet references, but (with the possible exception of 'spinning the web', these are not authorative sources. His comment appears to accuse me of 'personal interpretation of sources'. That I refute; I have been careful to cite my sources for the earlier cotton mills at Northampton and Leominster (both towns). I have succeeded in tracing older references to what turns out to be Thorpe Mill, Royton, not 'Royton Mill', but only (so far) as a passing allusion. The text provided is an exact quotation from Victoria County History, Lancs. V (1911), a reputable (but now old) academic source, with a citation. Unfortunately this indicates nothing about its significance.

• A month or two back, I looked for any academic source over several weeks without success. In particular, I found nothing on the subject in an English Heritage book on Lancashire textile mills. While that is primarily about standing buildings, I could not believe that the authors would have ignored something as important as this. In consequence, I am very suspicious of the correctness of the statement.
• I accept that the paragraph was inappropriately located, and have moved it up to (I hope) a more appropriate place.
• It is quite possible that Thorpe Mill is of great significance. There appears to be a gap in the history of the carding mill. This is said to have reached Yorkshire from beyond the Pennines in c.1780. However, no progess appears to have been made with that subject since W B Crumpe in the 1930s. Research in Lancashire has largely related to cotton, where mill developments can be traced back to Arkwright's developments at Nottingham and Cromford. Mill-based technology for carded woollens is derived from that for cotton, but there appears to be a missing link in what we know.
• Please discuss this matter HERE. I do not want to engage in competitive editing, as this is an undesirable practice. I hope to follow back the source in the next few days and will further edit the article according to what I find. However the most recent secondary reference that I have found refers to 'jenny shops', in which case, my correction may be wrong. If so, I will correct it myself. Peterkingiron 11:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now traced the source of the statement about Royton Mill - It comes from Butterworth, Oldham who had it from an aged inhabitant, whom he quotes expressing doubt about the statement. All other references are derived from this and add nothing to it. Please do not treat the other references as independent authorities: THEY ARE NOT. I hope this lays this controversy to rest. Thorpe Mill (incorrectly described previously as Royton Mill) was the first cotton mill in Oldham parish; it was probably not the first in Lancashire and certain not the first in the world. Peterkingiron 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking Sources?

The article is tagged as lacking sources, but I see a good amount of sources on the page and no discussion as to a complaint about sources missing. I've taken the tag out for lacking sources, but this talk section is here in case someone complains :) Silivrenion 11:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roller Spinning machine

I have added the following, if someone can think of a better way to integrate this please do, Roller Spinning machine was extremely important and the fact it gave rise to Arkwright's water frame even more so..

'In 1738 Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, of Birmingham, patented a Roller Spinning machine and a flyer-and-bobbin system, for drawing cotton to a more even thickness, using two sets of rollers that travelled at different speeds. This principle was the basis of Richard Arkwright later water frame.'

1757: Rev John Dyer of Northampton recognises the importance of the Paul and Wyatt cotton spinning machine in poem:

"A circular machine, of new design In conic shape: it draws and spins a thread Without the tedious toil of needless hands. A wheel invisible, beneath the floor, To ev'ry member of th' harmonius frame, Gives necessary motion. One intent O'erlooks the work; the carded wool, he says, So smoothly lapped around those cylinders, Which gently turning, yield it to yon cirue Of upright spindles, which with rapid whirl Spin out in long extenet an even twine."

see also: science and invention in Birmingham Thanks Nick Boulevard 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinning jenny and mule

I would stress that the jenny and mule were NOT initially powered machines and did not require mills. I thus have grave doubts as to whether the jenny should appear in this article at all. It certainly should not have been interjected into the middle of a discussion of the water frame, even if it might chronologically fit there. I have tried to rectify this problem. However, the article does not at present say enough about developments in carding, which Arkwright incorporated inot this second (but invalid) patent. Peterkingiron 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I have been over the text again to try to put it in a more logical order. I would however draw attention to my remarks above under Royton Mill. I would caution against too much further expansion. If more needs to eb said the right place is probably the articles on the individual technologies. Peterkingiron 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I must stress, with regards to Royton - that if you don't like, or don't agree with the paragraph, it's not grounds to remove/undermine it. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability; not truth and not point of view. There are now four seperate sources stating the first cotton mill was in 1764 in Royton. That it didn't employ certain technologies is irrelevant as it was still, verifiabily, the first cotton mill. Jhamez84 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition

I have just removed the following recetn addition:

There were many accidents in the cotton mills where many people lost limbs and even their own lives.

If the contributor wishes this to be part of the article, he (or she) needs to find a means of includign it without upsetting the flow of the article, and to cite an appropriate source. The statement may be well true, but requires proper discussion, not merely a bland statement. Peterkingiron 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)