![]() | The Churchill Machine Tool Company has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have a metal tool box with an embossed alloy logo with the stylized letters "J.L.C" on a red background, around this logo its says; "JOHN L. CHURCHILL & CO LTD. WALNUT TREE WALK. LONDON. SE11 TEL. 3063" It looks pre-war is this the same company?
Appears notable - discussing with user -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 12:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The corporate history is extremely tangled, as befits the British engineering industry. Website forums involving engineers and motorcyclists often state that CMT Co went into receivership in 1960/61 and that BSA, although wanting to buy both the lathes and the grinding divisions from the receiver, were in fact only able to purchase the former. This would go a long way to explaining why there is still a company trading in precision grinding equipment from an address in Altrincham using the name Churchill Machine Tool Co Ltd and why that company claims to have been doing so for over 100 years. Of course, it could be an advertising puff on their part but if you bear in mind that they have records for machines as far back as 1943 and still offer repair services for those machines, then it seems more likely that the forum discussions are correct.
If anyone has access to Companies House records then it really would help to clarify the situation. The lathes business operated from Yorkshire and the north-east, whilst the grinding business was operating from Manchester.
This is a notable company for many engineers, in the context of WP notability: a producer of innovative, well-constructed and enduring machinery that was much respected and trusted, and which can still be found operating in many workshops today. Sitush ( talk) 09:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this company linked in any way to the infamous Matrix-Churchill Machine Tool Company of Coventry? Churchill Machine Tools (Coventry) Ltd was liquidated in December 1974. Meanwhile TMG Engineering Ltd. acquired TI Machine Tools of Coventry in 1987 and soon afterwards renamed it Matrix Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd. Did they aquire the Churchill name from the liquidated company? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have used LTC Rolt as a source in this entry but there is a potential problem with something that he says. The Hiram Maxim pages currently queries whether Maxim arrived in the UK in 1881, twenty years after Rolt says Churchill was importing machinery to the UK for Maxim's development of his gun. Furthermore, I am fairly sure that the Maxim gun was not in production until the late 1880s. Clearly, if true, these points make something of a nonsense of Rolt's assertions. However, he is generally a reliable source and so until proven otherwise I have chosen merely to emphasise strongly that the precis of Charles Churchill's early work in the UK is based on the opinion of Rolt and no additional party. Hope this is ok. Sitush ( talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that there may soon be justification for moving much of the bio info concerning Maginness into its own entry. Note to self, bearing in mind Matrix-Churchill events after his death: "Sir Greville Maginness, who leads the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation and is chairman of Churchill Machine Company, has called for the "complete abolition of the embargo list, leaving the export of warlike goods to be embargoed by existing licensing procedure." - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/jun/13/east-west-trade Sitush ( talk) 12:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find a source for the 1865 start-up in business here, which existed on the article prior to my involvement in editing it. Using the London Gazette it is possible to track references to Churchill (via his address and a common collaborator) which suggest that either he was trading here while still moving between New York and London or that the 1865 date is in fact slightly out.
Here's what I put in the main body of the article and then removed while I check further, cross-referencing addresses where possible:
In March 1866 there is a successful application for "improvements in lathe chucks" under the same Act and referring to a Charles Churchill at that time listed as being in New York [1]; the same person appears in 1865 with reference to improvements in oil feeders and cans. [2];
I do not think that this constitutes original research IF I can prove the link via a commonality of published addresses. Thoughts, anyone? Sitush ( talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
References
A user keeps inserting requests for page numbers, claiming that the three citations referring to page 116 of the above noted book are not in fact all on that page.
Driving me daft because it is so counter-productive. Short of actually plagiarising the thing, or the relevant user actually becoming less obtuse and telling me which one(s) don't relate, I don't know what I can do. Please could someone restore my sanity and check. The Google books link is http://books.google.com/books?id=k6FIMyG4SmgC&lpg=PP1&ots=nYt1h3MJWi&dq=Alfred%20Herbert%20Ltd%20and%20the%20British%20machine%20tool%20industry%2C%201887-1983.&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=churchill&f=false Sitush ( talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The text from that page: "From 1930 Gabriel had been influential, together with Arthur Chamberlain, the chariman of both Charles Churchill and the company's manufacturing subsidiary, the Churchill Machine Tool Co." is sufficent to verify that the Churchill Machine Tool Co. was the manufacturing subsidiary of Charles Churchill. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I uncovered a bunch of trading addresses via old adverts/catalogues etc - all referenced. I should imagine that the Kelly's Directories publications are acceptable as a secondary source, as are newspapers/periodicals, but have I transgressed by citing info from the company's own ads & the catalogues held at the Museum of English Rural Life/National Archives? They are definitely a primary source but at first I thought it wouldn't matter because the facts used are, well, so blatantly factual and verifiable. With my historian's hat on I know that I'm right; with my more modern WP hat, and bearing in mind some recent WP:AN/I comments, I am not so sure.
Should I pull them? Seems a shame but ... Sitush ( talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Grace's Guide has various advertisements for Charles Churchill which I am reluctant to upload because there is no source & there may be copyright issues. However, at least [ | one of them] contains the only evidence I have found of Churchill opening a branch in Leeds, and the caption also suggests a "latest date" at which this could have happened (1918). Is it acceptable to link to the Grace's Guide page as the source for the info? I actually think the ad is from the Mechanical World Year Book of either 1917, 1918 or 1919 but cannot be 100% sure. Sitush ( talk) 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Decent quality photographs are proving to be impossible to find. A friend who goes by the name "Asquith" on an engineering forum has scanned some in for me from Curtis Sparkes' Famous for a Century privately published book. They'll have to do unless and until something better comes along. Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
By now I've had a very quick read through of the article and I suspect that it lies somewhere between GA-level and FA-level; however, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA, so at most it will gain GA from this review. Having said that, the way the article has been written in some places could in a "worst-case" provoke a claim of WP:OR so I will be suggesting changes to the presentation to minimise any risks of such an event.
I will now go through the article again in more detail and just pick up any problems. As per my choice, I will be leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may "correct" minor "problems" where it is less effort to do so, as apposed to listing them here and waiting for them to be done by the nominator (or another). Pyrotec ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point there are a few minor "problems" that need some attention so I will put this review "On Hold". Pyrotec ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well referenced and illustrated article.
I'm awarding this article GA. Congratulations on producing a fine article.
I consider that this article is well on its way to being a WP:FAC; however my oppinion is only one "voice" and it may be prudent to obtain a wider range of view points through the medium of WP:PR. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The company's history is intertwined with its founder and the parent company, Churchill & Co., Ltd. The history of the parent company is all well and dandy, but there has to be a point when the Churchill Machine Tool Company is given a separate section and it is detailed on its own. Honestly, the way this page is, it should be called The history of Churchill & Co.-- Screwball23 talk 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is absolutely not GA class. The text is hard to follow, the lead is absolutely too thin for any appreciable information, and readers like me struggle to understand why this material is even notable. I also would push for the page to be renamed, as there is more information on the parent company than the Churchill Machine Tool Company. That issue alone weakens the usefulness of this page as a reference on the topic, simply because it does not separate the history of the parent company from the Churchill Machine Tool Company. I would feel upset if I wanted to read about the Churchill Machine Tool Company, and couldn't find anything about its history without sorting through about 50k of dense, highly-irrelevant information. In contrast to GAs, such as Burger King, this does not even come close to a GA. I don't want to bust anyone's balls here, but the entire page needs a serious copy-editing to establish readability for the page. I personally want to see a LOT of change before I would agree to a GAN discussion.-- Screwball23 talk 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Churchill Machine Tool Company → Churchill & Co. Ltd — I support the renaming of this page to Churchill & Co. Ltd, as the majority of this page is about its parent company, and only a small section describes the Churchill Machine Tool Company. -- Screwball23 talk 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
First off, this change on the talk page was highly inappropriate. Articles can only be demoted from GA class by initiating a GA Review. It's the same with Featured Articles.
Secondly, I have reverted the changes that were made today by User:Screwball23. They resulted in a significant loss of information in the article. The changes to the lede, as Sitush stated above, were not that bad, but the rest of the article was mangled pretty badly from these changes. I think this should be discussed before major changes are made to a GA class article. Silver seren C 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
[ [1]]
In my edit, I tightened the paragraphs by removing a lot of trivial information. I also made the language more direct and focused. The line about The capital restructuring saw the addition of Herbert Chamberlain for example, could be made much more direct and readable by simply saying "he was added during the company's re-organization." There are many, many examples in the work I've done. Please check out the changes and we can discuss it below.-- Screwball23 talk 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians.
'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'
S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'
He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'
He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'
He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'-- Screwball23 talk 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've reverted the recent mass edit in order that we can go through this in smaller, more easily digested chunks. It will make life a lot easier in referring to things and, hopefully, we can reach a consensus here and then change the section. So, open for comments on the first section which appears to have had issues from the perspective of Screwball23 - Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company#Early_years_as_a_limited_company. List the proposals -> discussion -> change. How does that sound? - Sitush ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians.
'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'
S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'
He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'
He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'
He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'-- Screwball23 talk 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The Churchill Machine Tool Company has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have a metal tool box with an embossed alloy logo with the stylized letters "J.L.C" on a red background, around this logo its says; "JOHN L. CHURCHILL & CO LTD. WALNUT TREE WALK. LONDON. SE11 TEL. 3063" It looks pre-war is this the same company?
Appears notable - discussing with user -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 12:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The corporate history is extremely tangled, as befits the British engineering industry. Website forums involving engineers and motorcyclists often state that CMT Co went into receivership in 1960/61 and that BSA, although wanting to buy both the lathes and the grinding divisions from the receiver, were in fact only able to purchase the former. This would go a long way to explaining why there is still a company trading in precision grinding equipment from an address in Altrincham using the name Churchill Machine Tool Co Ltd and why that company claims to have been doing so for over 100 years. Of course, it could be an advertising puff on their part but if you bear in mind that they have records for machines as far back as 1943 and still offer repair services for those machines, then it seems more likely that the forum discussions are correct.
If anyone has access to Companies House records then it really would help to clarify the situation. The lathes business operated from Yorkshire and the north-east, whilst the grinding business was operating from Manchester.
This is a notable company for many engineers, in the context of WP notability: a producer of innovative, well-constructed and enduring machinery that was much respected and trusted, and which can still be found operating in many workshops today. Sitush ( talk) 09:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this company linked in any way to the infamous Matrix-Churchill Machine Tool Company of Coventry? Churchill Machine Tools (Coventry) Ltd was liquidated in December 1974. Meanwhile TMG Engineering Ltd. acquired TI Machine Tools of Coventry in 1987 and soon afterwards renamed it Matrix Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd. Did they aquire the Churchill name from the liquidated company? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have used LTC Rolt as a source in this entry but there is a potential problem with something that he says. The Hiram Maxim pages currently queries whether Maxim arrived in the UK in 1881, twenty years after Rolt says Churchill was importing machinery to the UK for Maxim's development of his gun. Furthermore, I am fairly sure that the Maxim gun was not in production until the late 1880s. Clearly, if true, these points make something of a nonsense of Rolt's assertions. However, he is generally a reliable source and so until proven otherwise I have chosen merely to emphasise strongly that the precis of Charles Churchill's early work in the UK is based on the opinion of Rolt and no additional party. Hope this is ok. Sitush ( talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that there may soon be justification for moving much of the bio info concerning Maginness into its own entry. Note to self, bearing in mind Matrix-Churchill events after his death: "Sir Greville Maginness, who leads the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation and is chairman of Churchill Machine Company, has called for the "complete abolition of the embargo list, leaving the export of warlike goods to be embargoed by existing licensing procedure." - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/jun/13/east-west-trade Sitush ( talk) 12:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find a source for the 1865 start-up in business here, which existed on the article prior to my involvement in editing it. Using the London Gazette it is possible to track references to Churchill (via his address and a common collaborator) which suggest that either he was trading here while still moving between New York and London or that the 1865 date is in fact slightly out.
Here's what I put in the main body of the article and then removed while I check further, cross-referencing addresses where possible:
In March 1866 there is a successful application for "improvements in lathe chucks" under the same Act and referring to a Charles Churchill at that time listed as being in New York [1]; the same person appears in 1865 with reference to improvements in oil feeders and cans. [2];
I do not think that this constitutes original research IF I can prove the link via a commonality of published addresses. Thoughts, anyone? Sitush ( talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
References
A user keeps inserting requests for page numbers, claiming that the three citations referring to page 116 of the above noted book are not in fact all on that page.
Driving me daft because it is so counter-productive. Short of actually plagiarising the thing, or the relevant user actually becoming less obtuse and telling me which one(s) don't relate, I don't know what I can do. Please could someone restore my sanity and check. The Google books link is http://books.google.com/books?id=k6FIMyG4SmgC&lpg=PP1&ots=nYt1h3MJWi&dq=Alfred%20Herbert%20Ltd%20and%20the%20British%20machine%20tool%20industry%2C%201887-1983.&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=churchill&f=false Sitush ( talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The text from that page: "From 1930 Gabriel had been influential, together with Arthur Chamberlain, the chariman of both Charles Churchill and the company's manufacturing subsidiary, the Churchill Machine Tool Co." is sufficent to verify that the Churchill Machine Tool Co. was the manufacturing subsidiary of Charles Churchill. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I uncovered a bunch of trading addresses via old adverts/catalogues etc - all referenced. I should imagine that the Kelly's Directories publications are acceptable as a secondary source, as are newspapers/periodicals, but have I transgressed by citing info from the company's own ads & the catalogues held at the Museum of English Rural Life/National Archives? They are definitely a primary source but at first I thought it wouldn't matter because the facts used are, well, so blatantly factual and verifiable. With my historian's hat on I know that I'm right; with my more modern WP hat, and bearing in mind some recent WP:AN/I comments, I am not so sure.
Should I pull them? Seems a shame but ... Sitush ( talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Grace's Guide has various advertisements for Charles Churchill which I am reluctant to upload because there is no source & there may be copyright issues. However, at least [ | one of them] contains the only evidence I have found of Churchill opening a branch in Leeds, and the caption also suggests a "latest date" at which this could have happened (1918). Is it acceptable to link to the Grace's Guide page as the source for the info? I actually think the ad is from the Mechanical World Year Book of either 1917, 1918 or 1919 but cannot be 100% sure. Sitush ( talk) 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Decent quality photographs are proving to be impossible to find. A friend who goes by the name "Asquith" on an engineering forum has scanned some in for me from Curtis Sparkes' Famous for a Century privately published book. They'll have to do unless and until something better comes along. Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
By now I've had a very quick read through of the article and I suspect that it lies somewhere between GA-level and FA-level; however, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA, so at most it will gain GA from this review. Having said that, the way the article has been written in some places could in a "worst-case" provoke a claim of WP:OR so I will be suggesting changes to the presentation to minimise any risks of such an event.
I will now go through the article again in more detail and just pick up any problems. As per my choice, I will be leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may "correct" minor "problems" where it is less effort to do so, as apposed to listing them here and waiting for them to be done by the nominator (or another). Pyrotec ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point there are a few minor "problems" that need some attention so I will put this review "On Hold". Pyrotec ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well referenced and illustrated article.
I'm awarding this article GA. Congratulations on producing a fine article.
I consider that this article is well on its way to being a WP:FAC; however my oppinion is only one "voice" and it may be prudent to obtain a wider range of view points through the medium of WP:PR. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The company's history is intertwined with its founder and the parent company, Churchill & Co., Ltd. The history of the parent company is all well and dandy, but there has to be a point when the Churchill Machine Tool Company is given a separate section and it is detailed on its own. Honestly, the way this page is, it should be called The history of Churchill & Co.-- Screwball23 talk 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is absolutely not GA class. The text is hard to follow, the lead is absolutely too thin for any appreciable information, and readers like me struggle to understand why this material is even notable. I also would push for the page to be renamed, as there is more information on the parent company than the Churchill Machine Tool Company. That issue alone weakens the usefulness of this page as a reference on the topic, simply because it does not separate the history of the parent company from the Churchill Machine Tool Company. I would feel upset if I wanted to read about the Churchill Machine Tool Company, and couldn't find anything about its history without sorting through about 50k of dense, highly-irrelevant information. In contrast to GAs, such as Burger King, this does not even come close to a GA. I don't want to bust anyone's balls here, but the entire page needs a serious copy-editing to establish readability for the page. I personally want to see a LOT of change before I would agree to a GAN discussion.-- Screwball23 talk 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Churchill Machine Tool Company → Churchill & Co. Ltd — I support the renaming of this page to Churchill & Co. Ltd, as the majority of this page is about its parent company, and only a small section describes the Churchill Machine Tool Company. -- Screwball23 talk 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
First off, this change on the talk page was highly inappropriate. Articles can only be demoted from GA class by initiating a GA Review. It's the same with Featured Articles.
Secondly, I have reverted the changes that were made today by User:Screwball23. They resulted in a significant loss of information in the article. The changes to the lede, as Sitush stated above, were not that bad, but the rest of the article was mangled pretty badly from these changes. I think this should be discussed before major changes are made to a GA class article. Silver seren C 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
[ [1]]
In my edit, I tightened the paragraphs by removing a lot of trivial information. I also made the language more direct and focused. The line about The capital restructuring saw the addition of Herbert Chamberlain for example, could be made much more direct and readable by simply saying "he was added during the company's re-organization." There are many, many examples in the work I've done. Please check out the changes and we can discuss it below.-- Screwball23 talk 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians.
'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'
S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'
He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'
He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'
He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'-- Screwball23 talk 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've reverted the recent mass edit in order that we can go through this in smaller, more easily digested chunks. It will make life a lot easier in referring to things and, hopefully, we can reach a consensus here and then change the section. So, open for comments on the first section which appears to have had issues from the perspective of Screwball23 - Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company#Early_years_as_a_limited_company. List the proposals -> discussion -> change. How does that sound? - Sitush ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians.
'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'
S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'
He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'
He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'
He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'-- Screwball23 talk 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)