Talk:Brummagem

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

Another 19th century reference[edit]

In chapter V of George Eliot's 1866 novel " Felix Holt" she has her hero remark "The most of the middle class are as ignorant as the working people about everything that doesn't belong to their own Brummagem life." Holt is college-educated, devoted to helping the poor, but blunt-speaking, arrogant, and prejudiced against all the rest of society. The adjective Brummagem is definitely negative, and its use by Holt beautifully encapsulates his personality. < CherokeeGuy > — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherokeeGuy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something...[edit]

Brummagem is actually a rare term for fake.Page for that,please and thank you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.2.8 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former deletion proposal[edit]

Brummagem was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Dicdef. Thue | talk 00:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Dictdef of private slang. Geogre 02:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Good thinking and recall on Shimgray's part. I suggest a merge and redirect to Birmingham, where it would be a natural fit in the discussion of the history of the city's manufacturing. Geogre 20:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Methinks someone is taking the mickey out of that fine English metropolis Birmingham. Redirect or delete. --Ianb 06:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not private slang; it's in Brewers (1894 & 1956 edn's), for example, and I'm fairly sure I've seen it in Kipling (although I can't immediately find a cite). If memory serves it's been relatively archaic since the first part of the century, though - it derived from Birmingham being one of the world's largest manufactories, and thus producing a lot of what we'd think of as "made in China" tat today. Hence "brummagem goods" were likely to be cheap, flashy, &c. That said... is it encyclopedic? I can't see it being much more than a dictionary definition, although I'll try fleshing it out a bit. No vote on what to do with it. Shimgray 14:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I'll concur with merge and redirect; a description makes sense in the context of the Birmingham page, and if it doesn't seem right we can spin it off again. Shimgray 15:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There's content here, it just needs unstubifying into a proper article; or, folding into the actual Birmingham article. I'd suggest the later myself - no need for it to be a completely different article.
  • I think the rewritten article is a keeper. Good work Shimgray :). Thue | talk 17:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in the [1911 Britannica] by the look of it. American Heritage picks up the counterfeit coin origin. The article I've linked to has some more odds and sods, if Shimgray wants them. Yes, simply putting "showy", "shoddy" would be a dictdef, but explaining how it came to mean that is encyclopaedic.Dr Zen 01:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll have a look at that, thanks; an actual Brummie's improved it, anyway. :-) Shimgray 23:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the counterfeit coin addition makes this a definite KEEP. It is a distinctive usage in its own right with its own historical context. Pretty sure it could be fleshed out further and will check it out at the (Brum Central) Library. Mattley 23:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't redirect. Interesting, encyclopaedic, and relevant on its own.
  • Keep. "Brummagem" is common UK slang for Birmingham (UK). The word is several centuries old: there is a mediaeval manuscript spelling "Bremicham". Anthony Appleyard 15:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems unique enough to have its own entry. -- JamesTeterenko 19:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Paul August 04:49, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --L33tminion | (talk)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

brummagen goods[edit]

I have brought this page up to date, brummagen goods were created alongside or as a spin off of some of the finest gold, jewelry, inovative edwardian patents etc... etc... boring, boring, boring. sorted now nyway :) Nick Boulevard 00:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've re-inserted and rewritten some of the stuff on the pejorative meaning of the word. Nick, an encyclopaedia isn't a forum for promotion of a city, and it ought to record the way words are actually used, not the way you would like them to be used. Look up "Brummagem" in any dictionary (the OED, for example, defines it as "counterfeit; cheap and showy". You and I know that's not the whole story of Birmingham's manufacturing history, but it is part of it. Anyone finding one of the multitude of references to "Brummagem ware" in 19th century literature and looking it up in Wikipedia ought to be able to tell what the author meant, and erasing the negative connotations of the word isn't useful. --Andrew Norman 11:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, I am finding your behaviour quite sophomoric. Go find another city to demean. :) Nick Boulevard 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nick, this and the article on Brummie are not your private playground. There is a very well-known meaning of the word "Brummagem" which you seem to be determined to erase from history - reporting facts (as an encyclopaedia needs to do) is not the same as advocating a particular point of view. Please read your own user page. Trilobite, thanks. This is now going to get serious.--Andrew Norman 06:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Just how serious? :) i don't respond well to threats Nick Boulevard 23:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

According to Wikipedia:resolving disputes the first stage in resolution is to talk to parties concerned. Nick does not seem interested in reaching a consensus position or in refraining from persistently deleting sections of the article, despite a lot of discussion. I'm now moving this to stage two, have requested that this page be protected, and have also asked for comment on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --Andrew Norman 08:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry y'all, I work full time away from a computer and so I may not get chance to reply instantly just to let you all know, that is.. the thousands of wikipedians that are grosely offended by my edits to Brummie and Brummagem.

I agree that the word Brummagem has been described as cheap goods in ALL dictionaries since I can remember but surely that is where Wikipedia is absolutely shoulders above such set in stone fuddy duddy entries of the British Language, I knew this meaning to be a smaller part of the story of the word and so I discovered that Brummagem or Brumicham was actually a local term to Birmingham and it's many visitors took away the name and with it their conceptions of the city (then town), I have added these brief "run downs" on the page as a general overall consensus, the negative explanation of the term is explained also which i took great pains to investigate I can asure you, the city was regarded as the workshop of the world in the 19th century with a daft amount of skilled workmen, scientists and inventors and out of these there were many immitators who flocked to the city and tryed to copy the skilled workers to make their fortune, out of such a cocophony of hammers and thoughts came genius and also... shit! that is where Brummagem was misused by a certain few which was documented, the skilled workers eventually didn't even know of the use of such terms and even if they did they would have had NO way of contesting. All very boring really, regardless, Brummagem originally was a Birmingham term and I have never heard it used as a reference to cheap goods though I have heard of a Brummagem Hammer (screwdriver) from a Cockney of all people, shocking! :) Nick Boulevard 23:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't just added material to this and Brummie, you have also removed other people's work without discussion or reaching a consensus. Your preferred version of the page (and I'm glad to see you haven't done your usual trick of reverting it) contains no mention whatsoever of the negative connotations of the word. Wikipedia, as you've been told several times, is not about promoting a partisan view of any subject. I feel the page as it stands reflects both the meaning of the word you'll find in dictionaries and literature, and balancing information about the origin of the word and the industrial heritage of Birmingham. If you're happy with the way the page is now (I certainly am), shall we leave it that way? --Andrew Norman 13:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andy... mmm... I can see what you are saying but I just think that the quotations bit is irrelevant to the article, should we list every persons quotation on 'scouser' or 'cockney', Brummagem is listed in most dictionaries as cheap and showy goods which was totally unfounded, now to my mind this is where wikipedia excells, it is or should be unbiased and mostly fact, a quotation about a community is a personal opinion by a single individual, not neccessarily fact. The article already addresses that out of a vast variety of excellent goods cheap crap was also produced, it's innevitable that if you use a spoon every day and it works you don't give it two thoughts but should it break then you go and buy a spoon from the same company for a similar budget you have no right to complain, Brum had thousands of manufacturers good and bad, mostly good. :) 195.92.67.209 00:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Nick[reply]

But this is nonsense - the word Brummagem means cheap and showy. It's in dictionaries; the concise OED to hand lists it with only an etymological reference to the city, and Brewer's does much the same [1]. It's in encylopedias; there's a link to the '11 Britannica above. It's not "a single opinion", it's quotations to illustrate the use of the term.
Birmingham used to have a huge number of factories producing - well, producing the sort of stuff people refer to as "made in Taiwan" these days, not so much low-quality as seen as a little bit tacky. It's inevitable that "Brummagem goods" became shorthand for this sort of thing; it was famous for it. Certainly this usage had overtones of provincial dismissal to it, but that only served to cement the use of an existing concept.
The issue with the quotation may be a valid one - personally I think it's large and out of place, and I'll try and find a pithier one - but removing the definition of the word simply because you don't like it is just silly. The page as you left it has an extensive summary of why Birmingham became known for its manufactories, but then leaps straight to saying it produced counterfeit groats and a lot of jewellery. As it was before, it actually explained the use of the term - without this, 50% of the page is pretty much meaningless and should be on Birmingham if elsewhere. It's perfectly sensible to explain that Birmingham produced a lot of good material, and was in many cases renowned for it - it's not sensible to try and ignore literary warrant.
And to forestall one objection made in edit summaries - no, this isn't some dislike of Birmingham. My sole experience of the place was changing trains there, a couple of years ago, and it seemed a perfectly nice place... Shimgray 00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quotation isn't perfect, it's one which came immediately to hand (and it does illustrate quite nicely the dual "showy and counterfeit" meaning). The "provincial dismissal" issue is why I landed myself in all this - I was reading Algernon Blackwood's "Sand", and there is an unpleasant character in that story (crude, unspiritual, duplicitous) who Blackwood makes a point of stressing is from Birmingham. Being a bit of a chauvinist I bristle at that sort of thing, and went to look at what Wikipedia had to say on the subject - I wasn't surprised (given the incompleteness of the project) that there wasn't anything here, but I was horrified to discover that it had been here but had been removed, and removed in a way contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. There's an interesting social history of denigration of people from industrial cities, or with particular accents, or in particular occupations (trade and manufacturing), and pretending that it doesn't happen isn't going to make it go away. --Andrew Norman 12:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

My dear Andrew, by replicating here in wikipedia nonsense which you have read in a book which was written by a person who was sadly ignorant to Birmingham and her (not just industrial) prowess (regardless of when the book was written) you are simply perpetuating the myth that the city is somehow inferior to other British cities, whilst I understand your shortcomings are not deliberate I cannot let wikipedia be "damaged" by your lack of understanding of how an encyclopedia works, never mind... you are learning all the time :) Nick Boulevard 23:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have made changes to many articles without any dispute or conflict other than here, and dispute and conflict seem to follow you all round Wikipedia. One of us certainly needs to learn. I'm not going to bother removing the passage you've just inserted, even though it is irrelevant, but I will note that Alexander Parkes did not invent Great Britain, and the International Exhibition was not the first ever form of plastic. --Andrew Norman 09:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
You have an extremely arrogant attitude Andy, conflict does not follow me around here or anywhere else for that matter, you seem to become personal when you have nothing of any sense to say like a spoilt little child, I am questioning the abuse of the term Brummagem, my home :). Just an observation. Nick Boulevard 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it to others to decide which of us is being arrogant. And others can also check your edit history to see what tends to happen when you get involved in "improving" articles. --Andrew Norman 09:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you may have an impeccable history on wikipedia, well done, you are one of many all noding in agreement with each other slapping each other on the back, the only reason I am here (a thorn in your side maybe) is because wikipedia is NOT elitist ~ The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
You see Andy... my opinion as a human being is just as valid as your own opinion, and just as valid as any other human being ever to walk this earth regardless of what they have achieved, I am here to question the use of the term Brummagem, originally meaning Birmingham, I wish to reclaim that term. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Shimgray, I agree with what you say that the description of Brummagem means such things in UK dictionaries however, my aim is to question this and not just take as fact something I read that has (to my knowledge) never been discussed with objection as is happeneing here... right now... we know by my own investigations that Birmingham was home to the largest Gun Quarter in Europe and maybe the world, Birmingham was also home to an immense Jewellery Quarter which was reknowned for excellence, the city had its own assay office, the city gave the poor of the world the freedom to write in the form of the mass produced steel knib, the cheap crap evolved as a by product of the extremeley superior exports of that city like the steam engine, celluloid, plastics and Electroplating which is why I believe the reference to the city producing cheap tat is about as applicable as if one were to use it in reference to London or Manchester. :| Nick Boulevard 23:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to stop for a second and remember what this is - this is the Brummagem article, not the Birmingham article. The page on Brummagem should discuss what the word means; the page on Birmingham should discuss the city. Look at, say, scotch tape - the word "scotch" there is used to mean "cheap". Do we need to include a lengthy explanation of how Scots aren't really as thrifty and cheapskate as generally represented, or a discussion of the Scottish economy as a counterpoint? Of course not - but it is appropriate to include a note saying how the name was derived. It just gets silly trying to cover this with caveats - it doesn't need to be discussed with objectivity, because it's a word and we're noting what it means. We're not here to change the world, we're here to record it.
Shimgray??? This is indeed the Brummagem article and it is a name given to Birmingham by the inhabitants of that city, it is another name for my home town, the fact that it was used in olden times by certain people to describe cheap and showy goods is relevant to the article which is why I included it but in a more p.c. way, it came about as a result of millions of items of all types of quality some of which were crap and hence it is not fair to simply say Brummagem means crap, I have never heard anyone say this, the only people not from Brum that use the term Brummagem refer to Birmingham itself, no connotations? The dictionary use of the word is infact out-dated and a misrepresentation. Nick Boulevard 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham was, for a period, the proverbial workshop of the nation; mass-produced items were associated with Birmingham; the term stuck. That's really all we need to say. It doesn't need to be apologised for, or hedged around defensively - that doesn't help anyone. Shimgray 23:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree which is what was there before untill Andy seemed to want to add quotations highlighting some passage from an old book with negative connotations to the word, I am sure there are many negative quotes I could find for other UK cities, the reason why I feel strongly about this is because Brummagem means Birmingham, what some boffin in London in the 19th century used the term for is worth noting but not focusing on, Brum is where my family are from and the facts speak for themselves regarding Brummagem wear, from the most innovative brilliant goods to the mass produced cheap showy stuff, it is not clear cut and can be easily misinterpreted. Nick Boulevard 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should also note that far from being Nick's "own investigations", there is a very large literature on Birmingham's industrial heritage and I can recognise at least one of the major sources for Nick's material (though he is rewriting it in his own words). Birmingham's manufacturing history is not something hidden and unknown, although Nick may only have come across it recently. --Andrew Norman 09:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Again, condesending, talk to ME Andy NOT over my head that is extremely rude. I have been researching the term Brummagem and it means Birmingham, what someone in another part of the country who was fortunate enough to be in a position to express his/her opinions un-challenged regarding Brummagem a hundred years ago is actually quite irrelevant IMO and not clear cut enough to simply say Brummagem means cheap and showy, to one man it may have to another it may not but we will only have heard the opinion of the man who felt strongly enough to express it, the evidence to suggest that Brum products were in fact of fine quality is actually just as relevant to the article and fair to the great industrialists of days gone. Nick Boulevard 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of stuff already in the article about the quality of some of Birmingham's industrial products (in fact, far too much, as others have pointed out - most of it is entirely irrelevant to the word "Brummagem"). The usage of the word to mean "cheap fake" is not some sort of aberration, it's the main sense in which the word is used outside Birmingham (and to a large extent inside Birmingham too, as I know). I'm going to tidy up much of the nonsense you've added recently, since you seem to be incapable of doing it yourself. Nobody ever referred to the high-quality goods from the jewellery quarter as "Brummagem", for example (if you're going to dispute this, please provide references). --Andrew Norman 09:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"There is plenty of stuff already in the article about the quality of some of Birmingham's industrial products (in fact, far too much, as others have pointed out - most of it is entirely irrelevant to the word "Brummagem")." - sorry Andy, these were quotations taken from around the 19th century when the word was in common use and are relevant, they should stay so please do not delete my work on this page or anywhere else for that matter, you obviously have a problem with Brum as I may point out to any one reading this the only additions that Andy has made to Birmingham wikipedia have been negative propeganda, the only removals he has made have been the positive truths :). Nick Boulevard 22:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nick - please read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (I have just put in a request for mediation, something an anonymous user advised me I should have done days ago), Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:What is mediation?. You might like to pay particular attention to the description of the process in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and the section "What happens if mediation fails?" in Wikipedia:What is mediation?. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would also be useful. --Andrew Norman 14:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noting especially Wikipeda is not a soapbox. And also there are the Wikipedia guidelines summarised in the no original research section that talks about original research, sources, verifiability, and NPOV. A crucial quote from there: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia entries is verifiability, not truth" (the emphasis is theirs).
Nick has made statements such as "I admit it exists in many dictionaries doesn't mean its 100% correct" and " nonsense which you have read in a book which was written by a person who was sadly ignorant to Birmingham". But the point with Wikipedia is that if any of us disagree with book definitions, that's tough. A book is a verifiable source and that's what Wikipedia entries are supposed to reflect - not the personal views of editors. If you're certain a source is biased, the only way to deal with it is to find other sources to clarify the situation. 195.92.67.68 03:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I need to put my thinking cap on to address this properly but at the moment after a day at work... I think my point is, why should the thoughts of an author (whoever they may be) be any more or less important than my own, I am just as real and from my own experiences and research Birmingham made goods on the whole were/are of a very high standard and would have no doubt ranged from the cheap and tacky to the highest calibre, how can we know that the author didn't have an unfair bias towards the people of Birmingham? the other thing I am questioning is why was Birmingham/Brummagem tarred with a cheap/tawdry connotation in the Oxford Dictionary? You only have to take a look at the main Birmingham article to gain an perspective of the highly skilled workers from the 1600's onwards from creating many world wide wire gauges to supplying arms to armies of the world. This article is going to need a complete refit before I am happy that it fairly represents the word Nick Boulevard 18:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken if we're talking an individual novelist. Dictionaries, however, are the result of massive collective research on a vast corpus of texts. Example: The Times leader, January 29th 1838, finds Sir Robert Peel being snide about the sincerity of an opponent: "Sir Robert Peel, who knew the sort of Brummagem stuff he had to deal with, treated the pledge and him who made it with utter indifference". If the Oxford lists it, you can be sure it was representative of English usage at the time. And that's what Wikipedia has to reflect: documented usage in sources generally viewed as reliable - however unfair or inaccurate you feel that usage may be. I urge you to read and work by the guidelines cited above. They're what make Wikipedia a credible source as an encyclopaedia, and not just a collection of personal soapboxes by people pushing their own agendas. 195.92.67.65 19:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Wikipedia cannot simply exist on random peoples additions and edits alone and I also can imagine the extensive work and effort that goes into researching a word for any dictionary, the first and most common use of the word Brummagem is as the Oxford Dictionary states, another meaning for Birmingham itself. Birmingham being the city, inclusive of its inhabitants, i.e. Brummies. I can accept that no problem at all.

Next we come to the meaning of the word that came about in the time (roughly) of the Industrial Revolution, Brummagem - counterfeit, fake, cheap. Ok I accept that many thousands of items were produced in Brum around this time, it was a massive industrial town, with thousands of people striving to make a living, after flocking from placed around the UK to a city with no major river or port, amazingly (to the credit of those people) areas like the Gun Quarter and Jewellery Quarter blossomed (although not with an easy ride), the city was awash with invention and skilled tradesmen, so much so that other countries capitalised on Brummagem workers in such trades as pen manufacture in the Easterbrook company in the U.S.A. and gun manufacture from Europe to the states.

Why then did (from what I have read so far) the South East use the term Brummagem to mean something that it was not as much as it was?.

Maybe there was no one to fight the corner for the hard working people of Brum, maybe they were all too busy making "cheap crap" ;) to be arsed to argue the toss. I don't personally agree with the negative connotation of this word and I feel it a duty the skilled people of the city past and present to either reverse it or at the least create a neautral article on wikipedia, Brummagem = a city of people of all walks of life, many unskilled, many skilled across the ages, why should brum be any different to london, manchester and so on?. The interpretation of the word that Andrew is trying to exploit is too closely associated with the original true meaning of Brummagem, Birmingham, lets cut to the chase...

what Andy (or whoever) wants the article to say is that people from Birmingham were/are manufacturers of cheap shit. I have read evidence and included it here on wikipedia to completely destroy that myth, take a wander around Birmingham for this evidence. Nick Boulevard 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's late at night, I really should be working, but... what gives you the right to "correct" the English language? I've a search window open here to Lexis-Nexis, which is a large database of newspaper articles. I've fed it the word "Brummagem". I get a decent number of hits. Many of those are for the "Brummagem Magazine", or in the Birmingham Evening Mail or Birmingham Post (which seem to mention that fine publication every issue, just about).
"what gives you the right to "correct" the English language?" ~ erm... Brummagem has always meant Birmingham in my book, from my great grandparents to present day, what gives the English language (whoever that is???) the right to sully the name of my own city? A bit harsh IMO. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But there are plenty of others... an article in the Grauniad quoting it in the "tawdry" sense, an article in the Sunday Times complaining that "there are brummagem displays all over Scotland.". In fact, virtually every use of the word I could find not in a Midlands local paper used it in the "dictionary" sense, not the sense meaning Birmingham. (There were some exceptions, mostly letters or editorials... and the latter usually in the Guardian, which still has a strong non-London core).
The fact still remains, Brummagem originally meant Birmingham. I am confident that there will be thousands of articles of many newspapers etc that have all kinds of connotations of Cockney, Scouser, Mancunian, Glasweigian etc, etc. Birmingham was a mass producer of goods of all quality. Brummagems = Birmingham people, what other people (across the ages) use that word for is not relevant to the Brummagem page IMO, otherwise we could look at all the negative meanings for the people of other cities in the UK. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, take the word "Embra" (Edinburgh); about as many hits, but almost all are in central Scottish newspapers. The conclusion we can quickly draw from those two is that both are locally used names, perfectly good for that (although 'Embra' does get dismissive overtones, especially in the Herald...) - but Brummagem has a second, fairly common, use outside Birmingham. Simply saying "this is outdated and wrong" is futile, because the word isn't meaning Birmingham any more. When someone talks about a Brummagem display, they mean to say it's tacky, not to say "it's tacky like you'd see in Birmingham".
You are missing the point, many people I know still refer to Brum as Brummagem town or simply Brum. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a whole selection of phrases which start "Dutch..." - Dutch uncle, Dutch courage, going Dutch - but when someone uses them, they don't associate them with the Netherlands. If I say "I went dutch", I don't mean I suddenly started speaking a Germanic language - no, I mean I paid half the bill. It doesn't have anything to do with the Netherlands any more, except that it probably originated as a vague insult. Likewise with Birmingham; you might want to consider if anyone ever actually thinks of Birmingham when they use Brummagem to mean "tacky". By now, it's virtually a seperate word spelled the same... Shimgray 01:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brummagem is a bit more direct and personal in the sense it is aimed at a specific city of around one million citizens, besides Dutch courage is not so insulting as cheap and tacky (when refering to an entire city and her people). Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Enough. I think this ought to go to mediation. Nick is poisoning the editing of pages related to Birmingham by this paranoid agenda, and seems incapable of grasping Wikipedia philosophy. Andrew? What's happening? 195.92.67.71 01:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Poisoning??? ha ha ha, don't be so silly. Your use of the word poisoning when refering to this article is a bit supercilious on Wikipedia methinks. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot at the moment - it's the first time I've had to get involved in this sort of ruckus, so I don't know how long it usually takes for mediation to be arranged. However, I'm heartened by the fact that great improvements were made to the article over the last 24 hours (and to Brummie), and Nick hasn't done his usual trick of reverting to remove them or adding irrelevant and poorly-written chunks of the Science and invention in Birmingham article as "balance". I am deliberately standing back for a while, until the mediation process starts. I'll nudge things along if the problem erupts again. --Andrew Norman 05:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If only I didn't have better things to worry about Andy. Throw your toys out of the pram just because Brummie article was taken out of you "control", you see... thats the thing here, we are all equal providing we act like adults, I have deleted your work as you have deleted mine (we can both prove), you have an alterior motive for editing this page although a few people here may have overlooked that, nevertheless I aim to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parkes etc[edit]

It's still hyperbole to describe Parkes as one of the UK's most significant inventors. Parkesine was actually a failure commercially and celluloid plastics were subsequently successfully developed in the USA. The stuff about the steel "knibs" (do you read any of your stuff before posting it here, Nick?) is irrelevant, POV, and unreferenced (it's a basic Wikipedia standard that if you're going to say "some people say X", you must provide references to show who has said that). --Andrew Norman 09:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

""it's a basic Wikipedia standard that if you're going to say "some people say X", you must provide references to show who has said that)." - Ok, thanks. Nick Boulevard 22:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am going to request mediation on this article now, because it's obvious that you aren't prepared to behave reasonably. I have also tidied up the reference to Parkes - the only "unfortunate irony" is that you chose to insert a paragraph (presumably to boost your contention that nobody ever made counterfeit rubbish in Birmingham) about an inventor who produced a plastic which he marketed as a cheap substitute for ivory, exactly the sort of thing that gave the word "Brummagem" the meaning you are trying to erase from history. --Andrew Norman 14:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I added Parkes as an example of an extremely skilled workman and inventor of Birmingham who gave us many great things including celluloid which when combined with Electroplating (which was first developed in the UK by Brummies) produced the precursor for Photographic film which gave us movie films etc etc, as I understand (he did all but name it), he was one of many tallented workmen of the city :) see: Science and invention in Birmingham it can stay or go I don't much care really, what I do care about is that you are deleting my content about the steel knib trade and how it helped the poor of the world who could up until then not afford such luxuries. I believe this is relevant as you seem insistant on adding your little negative quotation about Brummagem (birmingham), what it means/meant to someone else is not relevant in my opinion although I admit it exists in many dictionaries doesn't mean its 100% correct, maybe there are too many quotations here full stop, anyway I am sure we are mature enough to work this out, don't you just love Wikipedia :). Nick Boulevard 18:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have an answer. :) Nick Boulevard 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Norman[edit]

I agree that the quotation isn't perfect, it's one which came immediately to hand (and it does illustrate quite nicely the dual "showy and counterfeit" meaning). The "provincial dismissal" issue is why I landed myself in all this - I was reading Algernon Blackwood's "Sand", and there is an unpleasant character in that story (crude, unspiritual, duplicitous) who Blackwood makes a point of stressing is from Birmingham. Being a bit of a chauvinist I bristle at that sort of thing, and went to look at what Wikipedia had to say on the subject - I wasn't surprised (given the incompleteness of the project) that there wasn't anything here, but I was HORRIFIED to discover that it had been here but had been removed, and removed in a way contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. There's an interesting social history of denigration of people from industrial cities, or with particular accents, or in particular occupations (trade and manufacturing), and pretending that it doesn't happen isn't going to make it go away. --Andrew Norman 12:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC) ~ after reading this again, I feel even more strongly that you (Andy) have an alterior motive for contributing to this article :). Nick Boulevard 23:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"there is an unpleasant character in that story (crude, unspiritual, duplicitous) who Blackwood makes a point of stressing is from Birmingham. Being a bit of a chauvinist I bristle at that sort of thing, and went to look at what Wikipedia had to say on the subject" ~ Andy, to put an end to your little game, answer me this please... do you believe that a majority of people from Brummagem/Birmingham hold the same traits as the character that you read about (and decided to highlight on the Brummagem page)? Nick Boulevard 23:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I am not going to participate in some sort of "Brummie purity test". It's plain to everyone else participating in this farce what my motives are, and the answer to your question is in the passage you quote. Read it, and at least try to understand. --Andrew Norman 05:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It's plain to everyone else participating in this farce what my motives are" ~ couldn't agree more. Nick Boulevard 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It's plain to everyone else participating in this farce" ~ please elaborate, do you ever read what you add here Andy? Nick Boulevard 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wish to fall out with anyone[edit]

I really don't wish to piss anyone off here but all I can say is think of it like this...

You are from the U.S.A. in the 19th century and people from another country like for instance Great Britain have their noses put out of joint after getting their arses whipped in the War of Independence... then news papers in Britain printed all sorts of propaganda and innacuracies about the U.S.A. which go unchallenged, should those derogative references to the U.S.A. be included on the U.S.A. page on Wikipedia? Nick Boulevard 00:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Norman shows his insecurities about Birmingham :)[edit]

Nick, ... It's plain to everyone else participating in this farce what my motives are, and the answer to your question is in the passage you quote. Read it, and at least try to understand

For those too lazy to read this page I quoted exactly this:

there is an unpleasant character in that story (crude, unspiritual, duplicitous) who Blackwood makes a point of stressing is from Birmingham. Being a bit of a chauvinist I bristle at that sort of thing

then I asked Andy if he thought all people from Brummagem fitted the role he quoted and he refered me to teh above quotation? Nick Boulevard 00:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Boulevard 00:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant work[edit]

When I first visited wikipedia the Brummagem article was quite poor, pardon my savagery but I saw it as a boil on the bottom of the Birmingham article that needed sqeezing, I believe this zit has now been well and truly zapped and with so much history of the word there is a much more balanced article. I don't often see this word on wikipedia but... a sincere thanks to one and all, if this place were eniterly one sided (which it truly isn't) then it would surely become a graveyard for the megalomaniacs (A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. Nick Boulevard 23:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (thanks to G-man for showing me how to sign so easily :).[reply]

Intro Missleading[edit]

On returning to this article I think that the intro is still missleading a bit, as far as I can see the initial negative usage of the word Brummagem was due to the counterfeit groats made there, every city across the UK would have made good and bad wares, the fact that Birmingham mass produced virtually everything imaginable due to the city's close links with the Industrial Revolution is obviously going to lead to a cross section of goods. I would not call Cadbury chocolate and Austin cars (pre WWII) cheap and shoddy or even counterfeit not to mention many of the firms in the Jewellery Quarter and Gun Quarter who seem to have been the main employers in the city during the era the term seems to have been used. We cannot change history but we can show it in a more honest light. Nick Boulevard 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we can. I have a lot of extra information about the use of the word "Brummagem" throughout the ages to mean shoddy, mass-produced, deceptive rubbish. Birmingham had a particular reputation for producing trash. It's referenced, encyclopedic information, and I'll be adding it to the article and removing anything you add which is not referenced (i.e. anything you add at all, on past form). Or you can leave the article alone. You are not going to be allowed to go back to spreading brummagem rubbish all over Wikipedia. --Brumburger 16:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going to be allowed to go back to spreading brummagem rubbish all over Wikipedia. - wtf? I don't take kindly to your guttersnipe insults thankyou.
Birmingham had a particular reputation for producing trash. It's referenced, encyclopedic information - that's right, precisely my point. Birmingham did indeed have a reputation amongst certain people for mass produced trash, but that was a by-product of a city that produced everything imaginable and of every level of quality, it is unfortunate that the good stuff was ignored by some and their focus was on the crap, maybe snobbery came into it somewhere down the line. Birmingham was a fast evolving industrial sprawl full of working class people, some of particularly low skills and others highly trained in their field, from authors to inovators. To label everything to do with one city (in this instance Brummagem) as cheap trash is/was an insult to the skilled workers who manufatured, for instance, some of the finest British Jewellery in the Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham. Yes, there was a large amount of cheap mass produced affordable items for the working classes from buttons to toys but (often using cheap materials but of considerably high quality manufacture) at the same token, fine period examples of such items were also made.
There is just as much evidence on wikipedia alone that goods manufactured in the city was of a high standard. As I say, IMO the intro is SLIGHTLY missleading and could be worded better. This was an interesting discussion Nick Boulevard 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary[edit]

Source Nick Boulevard 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The songs ought to be at Wikisource. They're about the same length as the Christ the Lord Is Risen Today example at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources 86.140.109.194 00:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this song to stay, the article won't be damaged by including a short song, the article is hardly overflowing with info and the song is a good example of how the word Brummagem was used in reference to the canals of the city. Nick Boulevard 17:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of your or my personal view whether the article will be damaged: it's whether it's explicitly out according to Wikipedia's format guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry too, there's little case for inclusion of a whole song unless there's scope for "an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact". I can't find Brummagem doesn't add much either. Its sole relevance is that it shows the term used as a place name. The first couple of lines shows you that. Also I'm not clear on the copyright situation with songs quoted from published collections. 86.141.80.81 19:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork?[edit]

I note Brummagem Ware has been created. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything apart from another attempt to whitewash the fact that the word "brummagem" carries with it a certain negative connotation - what is this article if not an article on the term? A glowing version of History of Birmingham? Shimgray | talk | 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this article be split into two, I have created Brummagem Ware, this article at present seems confusing IMO.
Brummagem is a place with a rich history, Brummagem Ware was an insulting snipe at everything that looked cheap and tacky or fake regardless of where it was made, as the article suggests it was actually a sweeping statement and much Birmingham ware was/is of the highest callibre (read the article), the fact that it's negative use seemed to stick is a seperate debate and a seperate issue and YES it is partly founded. There are other meanings of place names that I am sure would not be acceptable for instance: anything Irish is often refered to as back to front or not making sense, is this included on the article about Ireland, and Bristols meaning... etc, I am not suggesting the article be changed and the suggestion of whitewashing is unfounded, the history is still there and the brummagem ware article is on going and quite interesting :) Nick Boulevard 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shimgray. The history of Brummagem the place name, Brummagem Ware, and Brummagem the pejorative term are inextricably mingled topics, so a single article is appropriate. Separating discussion of positive and negative usages would definitely count as POV forking. Tearlach 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also, seperation of positive and negative usages would count as POV forking... I'm not suggesting this though am I, please read my comment above Tearlach. The word Brummagem far pre dates any other meaning of the word positive or negative, any negative assosiation with old Birmingham relates specifically to a selection of the things made in that place and not the town itself and this should be represented in two seperate articles, to suggest all things of Brummagem origin (maybe even the people, this is unclear?) are fake and inferior is laughable, articles such as Gun Quarter, Pen Trade, Jewellery quarter etc shed a little light on this long perpetuated misconception. I do believe that there was a proportion of truth in such claims, however as I have said before the city of a thousand trades made everything imaginable (jokes aside) and from every end of the scale of quality. Nick Boulevard 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Content forking: The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. Tearlach 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I concede :) Nick Boulevard 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visible and rather obvious remainder(s) of historic name?[edit]

Forgive me, I skimmed through the rest of the discussion seeing if I could pick up on any mention of this so far, but as in total it's longer than the actual article (itself very good i must say, I feel I learnt something), it qualifies for a rather large tl;dr...


ANYWAY. Would it be worth, at all, linking some part of the discussion to ... well... West Bromwich? Nearby "town" (ok, part of the Brum-Wolvo-Walsall-etc conurbation) located, as one might expect, somewhat to the (north-)west of the city centre. About as far out as the other major suburbs. The similarity between Bromwich and a number of the other mentioned historical names is far too good to ignore and lends them some weight against the argument that the area was named for the quality of the goods it produces, instead of the more obvious and creditable idea of it being t'other way round.


Or indeed Castle Bromwich, which is roughly to the northeast, closer in and could be considered in the southern shadow of M6 junction 5, if it wasn't at a higher altitude even to the elevated section.


Cheers

--tahrey

... born in Solihull, reared in Water Orton (a district neighbouring Castle Brom) and mostly raised in Sutton (so i'm an easterner!)... not sure if I've ever been to the home of the Albion, but I'm at least aware of it's existence!

Clean Up[edit]

parts of this page are duplicated, it is also confused between old and new. Nick Boulevard 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Someone please add the correct pronunciation, using IPA symbols. Specifically, is the G pronounced /g/ or /j/? Thanks. Cbdorsett (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged great Brummagem murder[edit]

The great Brummagem murder of the 19th century was the slaughter of 2 families at an address on Woodstock Road, Moseley.

Citation? I can't find it in the British Library 19th century newspaper archive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Known in Australia?[edit]

I came across this word in an American review from 1880 of a very obscure opera by a French composer about Russian Tsar Peter the Great. I had to look the word up because I had never encountered it before. I very much doubt the word has any lingering use in Australia, as claimed in the lede. "Brummy", yes. "Brummagem", never. So, who says it's heard down here? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brummagem. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Bromwich-ham reference inaccurate and misleading[edit]

The opening sentence of this article is, in my opinion, misleading when it says “Brummagem (and historically also Bromichan, Bremicham and many similar variants, all essentially "Bromwich-ham")”, as this appears to imply the etymology of “Brummagem” is “Bromwich-ham”, despite a later sentence saying “The word appeared in the Middle Ages as a variant on the older and coexisting form of Birmingham (spelled Bermingeham in Domesday Book)”.

The Oxford English Dictionary clearly sets out that “Brummagem” and “Birmingham” have the same origins, and notes the sound differences of the former to the latter as follows: “Variants in Br- , showing metathesis of r , are attested from the late 12th cent. onwards (compare Brumingeham (1198), Brimingham (1200)). Forms of the name showing pronunciations of original medial -nge as /ndʒ/, /ntʃ/, and (with subsequent loss of medial n : compare α. forms) as /dʒ/, /tʃ/ are evidenced from the 13th cent. onwards (compare e.g. Bermincham (1285), Birmecheham (1285), etc.).”

“Brummagem” therefore is NOT derived from “Bromwich-ham”, but is merely a variant of “Birmingham”, distinguished from such by the metathesis of ‘r’ in the initial syllable resulting in forms quoted in the O.E.D. like “Brumingeham (1198)” and “Brimingham (1200)”, coupled with other sound changes, which can be seem in forms like “Bermincham (1285)” and “Birmecheham (1285)” without metathesis of ‘r’.

As the O.E.D. also says “Forms of the place name showing metathesis in the initial syllable and a medial affricate were very frequent in the 17th cent.; these features persist in current local pronunciation of the standard form Birmingham , and are also occasionally reflected in spelling. Compare the following examples of Brummagem (and variants) as a place name:” i.e. “Brumageham” (1660) through to “Brummagem” (2001).

Perhaps someone could change things in the article to reflect the above, and remove the “Bromwich-ham” reference, which seems to be an example of folk-etymology? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.220.3 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, and as I am in the Library at the moment, which is where this computer is, I have just looked up the entry in The Place-Names of Warwickshire (1936), which the O.E.D. references, and this is what it says about Birmingham in relation to forms like Brummagem, on p. 36: “Occasional metathesis of r, giving forms with initial Br-, is found from an early date. Later this established itself as the regular local pronunciation. From the 13th century onwards we have clear evidence also of the pronunciation of original -nge- as [ndʒ] and, with loss of n, as [dʒ], which has given rise to the familiar soft g of Brummagem.” 193.61.220.3 (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Forgot to mention, on p. 34, against “Birmingham”, it has “[vulgo brʌmədʒəm, bɛˑnigəm]”, presumably indicating common local pronunciations. 193.61.220.3 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making some valid points, and clearly have a keener understanding of the philology than I do; but the bottom line is essentially that there were a number of variant forms of the name in the middle ages, which eventually settled down into "Birmingham" for formal use, and "Brummagem" for informal use. I would suggest that you be bold and make some adjustments yourself to the article to correct and improve the wording – perhaps adding a short "Etymology" section, as appears in many Wikipedia articles. GrindtXX (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response GrindtXX, and my apologies for the lateness of this reply, but it’s been a while since I was last in the Library and posted up my orginal comments. I fully accept that there have been various spellings of the name Birmingham over the years, some of which are clearly the antecedents of that form and others of Brummagem, but my point was the current suggestion in the article that the forms that gave rise to the latter come from “Bromwich-ham”, when this is not what the O.E.D. nor The Place-Names of Warwickshire volume I’ve quoted say on the etymology.

Since posting things up I actually see on the Birmingham article it has “the city's nickname of "Brum", which originates from the city's old name, Brummagem, which in turn is thought to have derived from "Bromwich-ham"”, which, I assume, is why something similar appears on this article. However whilst the comment on the Birmingham article is referenced, the first of the two given, to the ‘Brummagem’ entry on Michael Quinion's World Wide Words website, makes no mention of the word’s origin. The second reference, therefore, appears to be the sole reference to a ‘Bromwich-ham’ derivation.

This second reference is to William Hutton’s An History of Birmingham (1783), which, although interesting, I would not personally consider as an authoritative source as the O.E.D. or The Place-Names of Warwickshire. Hutton, it appears, did not believe William Dugdale’s assertions about the name Birmingham/Brummagem coming from first name of its Saxon “planter, or owner”, indeed Hutton actually supposed “it much older than any Saxon date”. The crucial part of Hutton’s narrative would seem to be the following:

“The word, in later ages reduced to a certainty, hath undergone various mutations; but the original seems to have been Bromwych; Brom perhaps, from broom a shrub, for the growth of which the soil is extremely favourable; Wych, a descent, this exactly corresponds with the declivity from the High Street to Digbeth. Two other places also in the neigbourhood bear the same name [i.e. Castle Bromwich and West Bromwich], which serves to strengthen the opinion.”

Hutton continues to expand on his theory by stating:

“This infant colony, for many centuries after the first buddings of existence, perhaps, had no other appellation than that of Bromwych. Its center, for many reasons that might be urged, was the Old Cross, and its increase, in those early ages of time must have been very small. A series of prosperity attending it, its lord might assume its name, reside in it, and the particle ham would naturally follow. This very probably happened under the Saxon Heptarchy, and the name was no other than Bromwycham.

As I have noted, modern scholarship would appear to completely discount Hutton’s eighteenth century surmising, though I can understand, when looking at a form such as Ogilby’s 1675 “Bromwicham”, in his Itinerarium Angliae, you might well misinterpret this as being ‘broom-wych-ham’; especially given the existence of nearby Castle and West Bromwich (as well as the even closer Little Bromwich) where the derivation does come from ‘broom’ and ‘wic’.

I agree that a proper “Etymology” section would seem desirable, so as to correct matters, so I shall consider drafting something when I am able. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.220.3 (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Title[edit]

The title Brummagem in song is worded poorly. It could be changed to something along the lines of Usage in music. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brummagem&oldid=1200401906"