Talk:Hushing

Mining Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have made a start on this mining term and hope others will add further details, especially on its use in recent times. Peterlewis (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edit ignores the mass of evidence about use of hushing in the British ore fields, so I will put some refs to the Cornish work into the article. Peterlewis (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The latest edit ignores the mass of evidence..." Not at all. I added the Fact tags because I have some familiarity with the history of mining in the South West (Dartmoor in particular), and until I read your edits to Warren House Inn which led me here, I've not noted the term "hushing" being used in relation to mining in the South West at all.

After some searching I've found one reference: Phil Newman, "The Dartmoor Tin Industry", 1998. p26. This mentions one anonymous 17th century Cornish writer who describes releasing torrents of water down hillsides as a means of prospecting for tin. Newman goes on to state that this process "is known as 'hushing' in the lead bearing districts of England and Wales, where it was used widely". He also states that there is little evidence for any use of the method on Dartmoor.

In particular, I can find no mention of hushing in Worth (which you added as a reference): if it is mentioned or described in that book, please quote the page number.

So bearing in mind that article content can only be based on reliable published sources, it looks to me as if the mentions of hushing ought to be removed from the articles relating to tin mining in the South West. What do you think?

I've added back the Fact tags pending resolution. Best wishes, —SMALL JIM 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have pulled out a reference to hushing in Cornwall, and just looking at the pictures a colleague has provided of "streaming" shows that this is the same as "hushing". See the article on hushing for uses of the method (there are several, including the wave of water but also using the stream in a less powerful attack of the ground. The Cornish may not have used the term widely but the method is the same. Is this an argument about the definition of a term or Cornish practice? The gullies below Warren House Inn shown in the pic look identical to those in Wales and the North of England. I have also seen those gullies for myself and picked up some large samples of cassitterite in them. Peterlewis (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but without reliable sources to back up what you say, this is all original research. All the online references I've found indicate that the characteristic feature of "hushing" was the release of a flood of water down a hillside from a reservoir. See, for example, three pages on the Durham Miner website: [1], [2], [3]; a page on My Learning, and a glossary of terms used in Durham & Northumberland. It is not the same as streaming at all.

Now I've already quoted a reference that indicates that this "hushing" process was not widely (or at all) used in the South West; so for the disputed text to remain you'd have to find a source that refutes that. My reason for quoting the anonymous Cornish reference was to show how uncommon the process was, not the reverse: it is not mentioned in Pryce's Mineralogia Cornubiensis of 1778, for instance.

By the way, I've now found what I think is a copy of that anonymous reference, at Google Books - see item 3 on page 569. To my mind it doesn't clearly describe the hushing process at all: it sounds like it's describing the diversion of a stream through an already-dug trench. But that too is original research, so I won't pursue it…

So - are you willing to remove the disputed paragraph and photo? —SMALL JIM 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've assumed that silence means acquiescence, and removed the text and photo from the article. —SMALL JIM 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a mining expert. I do have some experience of Dartmoor. I have never heard the word "Hushing" before - never mind in connection with Dartmoor. It does appear to be a form of streaming & my curiosity is aroused. As soon as I can I run through the Dartmoor material I have. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've checked Hemery - High Dartmoor, Hansford-Worth - Worth's Dartmoor, Gill - Dartmoor & Harris - Industrial Archaeology of Dartmoor. Between them I would consider that they are pretty comprehensive in their cover of Dartmoor & its history. Not one of them mentions this term. It may be a local issue but - as far as I can see - early mining on the Moors would have been streaming & referred to as such. I can provide full references for the books if required (they are too big to fit anywhere round the computer!) equally I can search the other books I have if required. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hushing in Cornwall[edit]

I object to removing Cornish mining methods from the article, and I find the excuse of "original research" very weak. The cornish miners probably didn't use the term but the method is the same: use of large amounts of water to seek, wash and extract ores. Mining in Britain has always been very parochial with terms being used in one area and not another. You haven't responded to my argument about method and not the word. I will restore unless you can come up with a respectable argument.Peterlewis (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is not solely about the use of the word, it's primarily about the actual method. Can I ask you to read again the references that I provided above, on 17 April. They affirm that "hushing" is a narrowly-defined process that involved the release of a flood of water from a reservoir. Unless you can provide reliable sources that either (a) confirm that the term "hushing" encompasses more than that narrowly-defined process (thereby refuting those refs I provided), or (b) that that process was indeed practised in Cornwall and/or Devon (in contradiction to the earlier ref I gave, on 16 April); then by restoring your edit you would be publishing original research ("…unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas"), which is not permitted here. If you insist on mentioning the South West in this article, then we'll need to agree on a form of words. —SMALL JIM 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the recent edit, especially the deletion of an external link which exhibits one of the largest hush gulleys in Britain. The Cornish may not use the term hushing but that is surely the one of the methods they used judging by the width and depth of the gulleys I have visited on Dartmoor. It is not original research to say that the method is just the same as that used elsewhere, based on visible evidence on the ground. The Cornish were always very isolated from the rest of the country, but modern workers should recognise the method rather than the word. Peterlewis (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Two rational people should be able to come to an amicable agreement on this issue without resorting to edit-warring, but you don't seem to be taking any notice of what I'm saying. To get the first point out of the way: the external link was removed by Herbythyme, not me. (Herby: you need to search that site for "hush", not "hushing" to see two photos - I'll leave it up to you to decide whether they meet WP:EL.)

The rest of your comment is pure original research again - it's not acceptable to base content on things you've observed yourself "on the ground". Let me restate the issue, perhaps more clearly: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for … any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Based on the evidence I've collected (see above) I have challenged your statements that (1) the term "hushing" refers to more than the sudden release of a flood of water from a reservoir, and (2) the sudden release of a flood of water from a reservoir was a process used in mining in Cornwall or Devon (where Dartmoor is). By Wikipedia's policies you are therefore required to provide reliable sources for those statements or they will be removed. I think it's reasonable to give you till tomorrow to provide refs before I remove the content. —SMALL JIM 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

You asked for a reference and here one is from a recent report on the mining legacy in Cornwall from the the Government no less. At one site, a mine developer wanted to work a lead seam in Tregarock in the 1500's and used method called hushing. The ref is

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/pdf/h/0/aa11_1.pdf

and here is the direct quote:

.....Tregardock is a windswept strip of coastal margin, the dominant character of the property a combined product of the area's unstable geology and extractive industry; a fault line yielding galena (lead ore) and smaller amounts of silver. The lode was referred to as early as c1580 by William Carnsew, Cornish advisor to the Company of the Mines Royal, who proposed a scheme to extract the ore by damming water and then releasing it; a technique known in the north of England as 'hushing'. It appears that the plan was put in to action; further notes suggesting that the attempt resulted in some loss of life! Mining was certainly renewed by the mid-19th century when a number of trackways, adits, shafts and buildings including a small engine house were built in and around Minehousedoor Cove; these subtle features dwarfed by the nearby fractured mass of 'The Mountain', a naturally......

There will be more no doubt when I have finished the search. Peterlewis (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well traced - that's a very interesting account! However it does only tell us that one mine in Cornwall used hushing to extract lead/silver ore at least once. One might speculate that the fact that it caused loss of life may have been a reason for the process not being used more widely there. Anyway, you've gone and let OR get the better of you in the article again: "…widely used…", "…and probably tin ore…", "…perhaps when a reservoir burst accidentally."? No, sorry, there's nothing to support those assertions. And there's still no evidence at all for its use on Dartmoor (note that Dartmoor is not in Cornwall). So I've pruned the paragraph again, removed the Worth reference altogether as it's completely irrelevant (some of the gullies on Mars "bear resemblance to" hush gullies!), and incorporated your reference inline. It's time to move on, I think.

By the way, if you want pictures of genuine hushes, there are many on Geograph - just search for "hush". Geograph images are freely licensed and can be copied into Wikipedia (or preferably Commons), with attribution. —SMALL JIM 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph[edit]

I have rather stupid question... where is the reservoir in the black & white picture? If I'm not the only one that doesn't see it on first sight, perhaps it warrants an explanation. Pietrow (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i also cant see anything but a woman standing in a field.... BBnet3000 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same problem. Description of photo is not helpful "English: own photo from 1968" Bulwersator (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.196.3 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the current B&W pic is the same one mentioned over six years ago (I certainly don't see any woman or field), but I really think we need a better main picture than the current one. I can barely tell what's going on there, but I know it's not helping one bit. Could someone perhaps 'shop a diagram or something, maybe even in color this time? Mousenight (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - I see the field woman pic. Yeah, that one is even worse than the one I was referring to. Isn't there someone here who can help find a solution for this issue? I would, but I'm simply not in a position to do so. Mousenight (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 01:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hushing. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025062612/http://www.leaney.org/lake_district_search.php?match=0&cat=&searchword=Hush to http://www.leaney.org/lake_district_search.php?match=0&cat=&searchword=Hush

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]