User talk:J.cullwick

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Hannah Cullwick, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Legion fi (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether I am responding correctly. I am a Cullwick family historian and the nearest living relative to Hannah Cullwick with the same surname. I assisted Dr Diane Atkinson in the research for "Love and Dirt".

My great uncle was a well known genealogist - Professor Geoffrey Cullwick (1903-1981) and some of my knowledge about Hannah was gleaned from him. So my knowledge about her family background is second to none.

And the Wikipedia article is simply incorrectin continuing to suggest that Hannah was working class. she would probably claim herself to be working class, but the facts prove otherwise. Her father had quite high status in Shifnal - as did both her grandfathers. They were all employers, not employees. All her immediate relatives (and her father was one of 12 children and mother one of 5) could read and write. I do think Hannah would have had less education that most of her relatives simply because money was so tight in their household about 1840 when she would have had some schooling, and the fact that she was found a precious place in the Charity School in Shifnal did help her to write her diaries so clearly later in life.

But she wrote to all her siblings and they wrote back - so hardly illiteracy in their family as some writers suggest.

And all Cullwicks find the constant mispronunciation of the surname really annoying - as if someone else is being talked about. The "w" has always been pronounced, and all of us have to constantly correct people who pronounce the name Cullick. A TV programme on Channel 4 last week constantly referred to her as Hannah Cullick, not Cullwick.

I do hope you can accept some of my corrections to Hannah's entry in Wikipedia. I would love to see the Wikipedia entry reflect what and who Hannah really was. A truly nice religious lady who worked exceptionally hard and told us a lot about ordinary Victorian life of servants - and a little about her extra-ordinary life as well.

J.cullwick (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the above explanation is good, and I have nothing against it. But the thing is that it constitutes original research, because it cannot be sustained by reliable sources and hence the information cannot be verified. The verifiability policy, as well as the original research policy, are two of the main policies in Wikipedia. If a content fails to comply to those policies then it can be removed. Could you please read the links I've left in this post? They will explain why I'm reverting your edits. If you have any doubts, don't hesitate contacting me. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How frustrating is this? What I have clearly said about these two insertions in my latest edit is that I am the main verifiable source. There is no-one (repeat no-one) who knows more in this world than I do about these two particular matters: 1. Her class background and 2. The pronunciation of her name. Pronunciation can be verified by contacting any of the 600 people worldwide today who have the surnames Cullwick or Culwick. And her class can be readily determined by looking at the 1841 census (father Master Saddler), or the 1844 Shifnal Directory (on line) or the Burgess of Bridgnorth records. The Burgess records show that in 1828 her father Charles voted with his father William (1754-1838) and his brother William (1781-1853). They were all yeomen and were the father, uncle and grandfather of Hannah Cullwick. And Parliamentary voting was not a priviledge of the working classes before the 1832 Reform Act - and not for many years after 1832.

If you will not accept me as a verifiable source or my great uncle Geoffrey Cullwick OBE (1903-1981), then you will find confirmation she was not from a traditionally working class background in Diane Atkinson's book "Love and Dirt" - one of the references cited in the article currently. And Diane will confirm our pronunciation of the name too. She did at least make a small effort to discover these two facts in her research.

I intend to continue to try to make these amendments until I get told I am a nuisance. I am absolutely determined to get some of the many incorrect facts about Hannah Munby corrected - and I had hoped that Wikipedia would allow me to correct the more obviously verifiable errors like how we all pronounce our name and where we come from in terms of our background. Which are both verifiable in our extensive family records - which includes two coats of arms and two pedigrees (both containing Hannah) held in the College of Arms. I am not a snob, but I am an academic to a degree (I have several post graduate qualifications) and I do not like obvious inaccuracy and secondary quotes from poor research. Why did the reserachers in the 1970's not approach Prof Geoffrey Cullwick and ask him for his input then - he was after all in "Who's Who" from 1927 until his death in 1981 and easily contactable therefore.

J.cullwick (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have to congratulate you for the efforts you have done towards having accurate facts in the Wikipedia. Thank you. Also I have to tell you that you are in no way a "nuisance". You are probably the most reasonable and intelligent new editor that I have come across. Also, please don't be frustrated. Your efforts are appreciated and worthy. Even the ones that I've reverted. But please, put yourself in my position and in the position of the other editors and that of the Wikipedia readers.

I have no doubt that you know all that you claim to know. I assume good faith from your part and believe you. But I'm really sorry, you and your family do not comply to the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources (you did read the links I left you, right? Thank you). You may be the world's most qualified specialist on the subject, but If your work is not part of a published third-party source, then we (the editors and the readers) cannot verify the info. Verifiability is one of the core policies of the Wikipedia. If we cannot verify the info you are adding claiming you as the source, then it constitutes original research (which I'm not saying is bad in anyway, it is just that Wikipedia is not about original research). Also, the exclusion of original research from the Wikipedia is one of its core policies. So, as you can see, it is not that I don't believe you, it is not that the info you are adding is wrong. It is that the info you are adding, and the WAY you are adding it, violates two of the three core policies of this encyclopedia. And I just cannot let that kind of content slip trough.

But, you have touched me. So I will work with you towards correctly adding and verifying the info you are trying to add (Normally I would just revert). You mentioned that there is a book about the subject that can sustain your claims. Could you do me a favor? Could you grab a copy of it and localize the exact pages where the info you are adding is mentioned? That way we can reference the info to the source. About the other records you mention. Can you tell us exactly where they are? Which Library, Collection or public registry... plus the number in the entry in that place (the catalog number for library or collection, or the record number for the public registry)? That way we know that at least there is a primary source about the subject. But be careful, primary sources are not recommended to be used as sources in the wikipedia, because much that can be said about them depends of who read them (for example, the analysis you make from them) and hence constitute original research. Please read the guideline about primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

I promise I will look for the book you mention and try to get a copy, either online or from a Library nearby. Once again, thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your measured response to my frustration at not being able to correct the entry. It is quite poor and based on old and flimsy research by Dr Liz Stanley. I also note she is the one who insists the surname is pronounced without the "w".

Chapter 2 of Love and Dirt by Diane Atkinson paints a much more thorough and well researched background of Hannah. To quote from the third para of Chapter 2 on Page 6: "The Cullwicks had been saddlers for generations. They were a lower middle class family and had been burgesses or freemen with the right to vote.... In 1828 Charles Fox Cullwick (Hannah's father) could vote in parliamentary elections, at a time when this was denied to most Englishmen and all Englishwomen"

In Para 2 it states that father Charles signed their marriage register with an arty flourish, Martha signed with a smaller, sweeter, shyer signature. And Martha's sister Ellen signed as a witness. It is clear from that that both families had at least a rudimentary education, largely denied the working class of that day.

Her parents lived in an 8 bedroomed house in the centre of Shifnal, attached to the saddlery. And Charles was listed in the 1844 Shifnal trade directory as a saddler (one of four occupying the important position of saddlery masters in the town). He had studied saddlery during a 7 year apprenticeship and then would have been a journeyman (paid by the day) to work as a saddler. Eventually - probably about 1827 aged 24 - he would have become a master in his own right and would have employed one of more journeymen and an apprentice or two.

If you are happy to include the last revision details (pronunciation of name and that she was not from a working class background but a background of yeoman tradesmen who generally served a 7 year apprenticeship before entering their career, that would be a start. I will then try to correct, embellish the Wikipedia article some more from "Love and Dirt". One final thing - I can see that a census or birth certificate is a primary source, but Professor Geoffrey Cullwick in 1957 worked with the College of Arms to develop our family pedigree. He had to prove every link in a very systematic way. In 1985 I put my own line on the pedigree (father and grandfather and children). I had to provide the marriage and birth certificates of my grandfather and my father - they would not accept that I knew (in good faith) who my father was!! So would you consider our Cullwick pedigree lodged with the College of Arms to be a secondary source?

J.cullwick (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]