Jump to content

Talk:Bacup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bacup article is now substantially improved and expanded, though would still benefit from a photograph. Probably no longer a stub? Bob 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacup Coco-Nutters edit

[edit]

Re edit on 00:47, 18 April 2007 by Jhamez84 (Talk | contribs) (Removed Coco-nutter stuff - unreferenced and non-notable. address grammar issues in lead). I don't agree with you that the references to the BCD are non-notable, and hence that references to them within the Bacup entry should be removed. My perception is that the BCD are a key feature of Bacup identity and therefore relevant to any description and definition of the town, certainly more noteworthy than the references to 'The League of Gentleman' connection. I ask you to reconsider your edit. Anyone else have a view on this? Bob 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:CITE, WP:A, and WP:NOTE for guidance and the justification for removing this material.
The BDC, however involved in the community they may be, would not appear in any other Encyclopedia about Bacup for obvious reasons, and thus I think it's inclusion would be in breach of several of Wikipedia's policies. Jhamez84 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and guidance. However I question your 'for obvious reasons' re. notability. Even a cursory knowledge of English Customs reveals that the BCD have considerable national significance. One example - 'the most astounding dance occasion in the entire Custom Calendar. They are the only genuinely old traditional team going...'(The National Trust Guide to Traditional Customs of Britain/Brian Shuel 1985). This extends far beyond your opinion 'involved in the community they may be' to substantive information of broader significance. Bob 07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated the BCD section to the Bacup entry having waited to see if the above dialogue was commented upon. The section is now annotated with proper referencing, and I think the referencing also makes it clear that the information is notable. Bob 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Blackface

[edit]

I've removing the internal link to Blackface by Friejose because it is (unintentionally) highly misleading. The wikipedia entry on Blackface is with regard to "a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist American archetype...". This is by no means the likely root or intent of the blackened faces used by the Coco-nut Dancers. Although the origin appears to be unknown, one of the most frequently alluded to associations is with Cornish coal-miners; the blackened face derived from the grime covered faces of the miners. Whether this is true or not the connection is more likely to relate to the many European folk custom traditions where black face stems from representations of winter, the dark season. An origin derived from racial imagery is highly unlikely in this context. Bob 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to go through and wikify terms in the cocoanuts dancers portion of that article, and the blackface link seemed appropriate at the time. I understand your explanation, and I won't get into a revert war over it! It may make sense, however, to either add a section to the current blackface article to reflect the English usage of the word in the English folk dance context, or to create a new article along those lines. I leave it to your discretion. Friejose 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym

[edit]

Bacuprians was mentioned by a Lancastrian, but he notes no references in Google to the term, so perhaps it isn't widely used enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Davitt

[edit]

All the sources I know say that Davitt and his family emigrated to Haslingden not Bacup,and this is certainly acknowledged to be the case locally and in all of the works and documentation I've seen on Davitt's life. I haven't immediately removed this from the article because of referencing. Any response? Bob (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source used states he and his family lived in Bacap. We shouldn't remove this material as it is in a reliable source. It may have been a temporary situation for Davitt however. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the reference to Davitt living in Bacup is, at best, misleading, as all scholarship is clear that the Davitt family moved from Ireland to, and subsequently lived, in Haslingden. Worth checking WP:R for guidelines on verifiability - if the source is indeed reliable then provide page numbers etc. Jza84 has made a great contribution to the Bacup article but has, in the course of doing this removed other referenced material, which I have restored. A combination of both the older material and his newer edits strengthen the Bacup article and I cannot see the reason for removal of the referenced material on the Coconutters. See WP:CITE. Best regards Bob (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You removed references to Davitt though....? Then added unsourced content...? The page numbers where removed by you with this change ("Eagleton (1996), page X").
Please reformat the remaining references and maintain the layout recommended at WP:UKCITIES. I've no objection to sourced content, but we need to improve the standard of citation by adopting a fuller and more professional style. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no intention of getting involved in edit warring. The 'additions' were actually reinstating referenced statements removed by Jza84 in the major re-edit he/she undertook on 11th November. As I've said before, I applaud this work on the site; what it shouldn't do is make Jza84 feel that they have personal ownership of the Bacup page and that any subsequent edit is a personal sleight. By what definition is a National Trust publication on English Customs not a suitable reference source? Bob (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadclough

[edit]

"in the 10th century the Anglo-Saxons battled against Gaels and Norsemen at Broadclough in northern Bacup"

As all 3 refs give no further detail it is hard to be sure, but I believe that this is related to claims that Battle of Brunanburh occurred in the Burnley region. This claim is certainly not proven, and not currently believed to be likely. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Broadclough isn't considered to be a man-made structure anymore. [1] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bacup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bacup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bacup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacup&oldid=1245365366"