DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Charles Bage

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Bage. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

[edit]

@Qwirkle: There is no point in repeatedly tagging the article with no discussion, no precise indication of which sources displease you, and which wording you would prefer in the article text. I have responded every time with a revision of the article in response to your edit summaries related to your tagging, but each time you come back with repeated tagging with a slightly different explanation in the edit summary. Your behaviour is now looking like an edit war, because it is difficult for me to attempt to correct the article in good faith, when your explanations are obscure. You remove a quotation from Historic England (HE), which is a government commission and advisor on the subject at issue here. If HE is wrong, you need to explain here in what way it is wrong, and you need to tell us exactly which source you believe is better, and in what way.

As far as I can make out from your unclear edit summaries, we need a clear definition of what "iron-framed" meant when Cage did his work, and what evidence we can find to tell us whether the building was iron-framed by Cage by the definition of the time. We also need to look at how (or whether at all) we can realistically draw parallels or discover relationships between Cage's structure in this particular mill, and the structure of modern high-rise buildings. For example, many modern high-rise metal-framed buildings use a central core and cantilevering from that, and Cage didn't do that. He used pillars and beams, as shown in the photos in some sources.

If you do not explain your reasoning in full, here on the talk page (or correct the article in full to correct it, with full edit summaries), I shall assume that the reason for your tagging is not proven, or is not clear enough to justify a tag. Tagging is supposed to assist other editors to correct the article. It should not confuse or mislead well-intentioned editors. Storye book (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To take the most contentious point first: accuracy tags are not just for wiki “editors.” The service they provide the readers, the supposed point of Wikipedia, is at least equally great. Any Wikipedia article should be taken with a grain of salt, but for some it should be a great hulking boulder.

While Bage had some real accomplishments to his credit, this wasn't the first substantial use of iron to span large distance in a building. The French tend to see the (wrought) iron roof structure of the Theatre Francaise (Salle Richelieu in wikipedish) as the first substantial use of iron in building framing, and the ancestor of skyscrapers. This, too, is rubbish, but far less so. Wrought iron’s toughness and ductility made it suitable for the portal frame designs that modern skyscrapers often depend on. Cast iron’s brittleness and low tensile strength made it an evolutionary blind alley in structural evolution.

Aside from this, we have a claim about his family’s religious background which is explicitly contradicted a source in the article -The Bages were not Quakers; we have the subject’s father’s accomplishments ascribed to him -Charles Bage wasn’t a novelist; and we have a certain level of euphemism -one of Bage’s major projects was a workhouse, and the term is studiously avoided in several references.

That’s just for a start. Qwirkle (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I didn't know all that. I was just trying to adapt the article to the tag, and didn't expect the article to be false. Since you know more about Bage than (probably) most of the rest of us on here, please could you kindly edit the article yourself to show in fairness what he actually did? That might be quicker and easier for you than arguing the toss with the likes of me.
I do think, though, that for the sake of openness/balance, we do need to say something like, HE says that the building is iron-framed, but expert/souce X says that it is in fact constructed [in some other fashion]? I think that HE is too important a source to simply ignore. I do agree, though, that HE makes mistakes. On top of the old Yorks Bank in Leeds, there is a lovely big statue of Midas, complete with big donkey ears (which identify Midas), a beard, and a Grecian robe. The Midas myth is a story of greed, and the sculptor was being moralistic about rich people and banks. However HR describes the statue simply as a woman. Sometimes they need glasses. Storye book (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the thing to do is to emphasize the contribution to so-called fireproof construction.

(That had lasting effects; the house I grew up in, finished in 1891, used a lineal descendant of Bage’s flooring system for the roof of its ash pit. Rail iron instead of cast iron, and hollow terracotta flat “arches” (vaults, really, like the brick ones seen here), but obviously the same design family. Lasted past WWII in some areas.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you edit it yourself? You clearly recognise a need for particular sources, and precise wording, but you do not tell us what they are. Your contribution so far has not been positively helpful to the article's improvement. If the tag says the content is disputed, then we need precise details of the dispute, not generalisations, if any of us are to improve it. Why do you spend time replacing the tag, and discussing here, when that time could be spent on improving the article instead? Storye book (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians don’t handle ambiguity well, and the fact that some words and phrases have more than one meaning can lead to a sort of Tyranny of the Bluelink, where sources who use a word in one sense are shown as if they were using it in another.
in the meantime, though, wouldn’t it make sense to temove the claims that are controverted in the cites? Qwirkle (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you know so much about it than the rest of us, then you should edit it instead of taggng it. You say that there are good and bad sources, but you don't say which (apart from HE, which doesn't contradict all other sources) but you don't say exactly which other sources are disallowed for lying. Frankly, I am beginning to be a bit suspicious of this conversation, because you don't specify exactly what is wrong in exactly which sources, and you don't say exactly what is wrong in the article text.
Regarding the definition of iron framing, I think it is very likely that Bage's understanding of the term was different from a modern definition of the term, due to the historical development of that idea and technique. I think that that issue may be one reason why some sources may appear to contradict each other.
If Wikipedians can't handle historical ambiguity, then they have a problem with the definition of history itself. If one regards the definition of history as a list of hard facts, then there is no such thing as history. We all know the example of an incident observed by a crowd, in which most of the witnesses later contradict each other regarding what they saw and heard. That sort of mess, frankly, is real history - a conglomeration of different aspects. No historian can represent it all accurately as a whole, but we all do our best to be truthful about what sources are out there.
To write an honest article about Bage, a historical architect who did historical stuff, witnessed by generations of historians, we have to honestly represent the fact that some sources will inevitably contradict each other, in the manner that I described above. So if you would please kindly edit this article for us, all you have to do is start from scratch, assemble for yourself a list of all the relevant sources that you can find, then compose the article to tell us clearly and honestly what is in the sources. And if the sources contradict each other, you need to be honest and clarify who, what, and why. If some sources are proved wrong, and you have a citation for that proof, then you should say so.
I don't think that you should continue to waste my time here by saying vague stuff and and tagging the article as disputed. If you really know more than we do, you should either edit the article, or remove the tag, Storye book (talk)