Talk:Factory Acts

message: I think more time should have been spent discussing the merger, I only just saw the 1802 act was merged. It was tagged on 27 May and 3 days it later it has been done. I for one did not have chance to participate as it was a Bank Holiday weekend. Kurando | ^_^ 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are always welcome to open a new discussion on reversring this, but it was fairly uncontroversial (there was a precedent since all the other factory acts were on one page) and no-one objected, so it seemed reasonable.  You don't really want to separate out all the acts do you?  Captainj 09:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok sorry I was mistaken about the timing, I see 1802 was tagged on 24 May and it was a later edit on 27 May. I'll leave it merged now as I don't have anything to add to it at the moment, but I imagine that article on the 1802 act could be expanded substantially. Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: The 1891 section seems to be a direct copy of this: .
FlowRate (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be correct. The Internet Archive states the content was on that page from at least 25 Feb 1999, whereas it was only added here on 29 Mar 2007. It is not clear whether the text was created by the website or if it is a direct quote from the book they refer to, however either way it appears we have a copyright violation. I would suggest a rewrite of the 1891 section is in order to put the text in our own words. Road Wizard (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Copyright Violation

message: These sections seem to be mostly duplicated. AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Factory Act 1850", "Factory Act 1856"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Factory Acts. 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/20080602052226/http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/docs/view.php?doc=2624 to http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/docs/view.php?doc=2624
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Despite what the 1902 Britannica says, and despite WP's belief that secondary sources will be the most accurate, the 1871 Act did not remove Crown immunity for Government factories, which lasted well into the 20th century. Lord John Manners did put down an amendment to remove Crown immunity, but withdrew it before committee stage (see Hansard for 14 August 1871: LJM announces withdrawal and 15 August 1871, committee stage of Bill) Similarly, if more obscurely, the Jewish Encyclopaedia's claim that the 1870 Act allowed Sunday working by Jews is wrong; the select committee on the Bill thought something should be done, but not by the 1870 Bill. It was left to Sir David Salomans to bring in a private member's bill the next session and see it through Parliament. I have edited accordingly.  Rjccumbria (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1871 Act 

message: What is the registration act for 1815/1816 24.244.177.126 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery