Talk:History of coal mining

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

Cost of Coal[edit]

This is probably irrelevant to a history page, but if someone wants to add these back, I have removed the reference to the journal article about externalities because the conclusion wasn't given. I've removed "50%" because it was vague and unsourced, and I've removed the reference to the PDF for coal being the primary source of electrical power because it didn't say that anywhere (it said that the majority of coal is used for electrical power, which is different) Kevinpet (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headline textStrike-through text[edit]

If this is expanded, this should be linked as "main article" from history section of coal mining article.

If it is not expanded, it should be merged with coal mining. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jevons' graph[edit]

It might be interesting to add this graph, which should be free of copyright, but I don't know how to do it. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ0.html Can anyone add the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.159.117 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I am not a good person to AfD things, but somone needs to merge this with coal mining and Afd this artocle. If it becomes necessary, == I would oppose the merging of this with coal mining. However this is a vast subject, and probably needs to be dealt with by providing regional overviews for each major coalfield in each country. Indeed some of these may need separate articles with this one providing an overview.

Even the present bibliography on Great Britain is severely incomplete, lacking scholarly works by J. U. Nef, John Hatcher, M. W. Flinn and others. Peterkingiron 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I upgraded the bibliography. Rjensen 08:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References?[edit]

I think someone has confused the reference section with a general "Further reading"-list. I mean, the darned thing is longer than the article. I've moved the list here to the talkpage. Please don't move it back without sorting out the actual references first. And do try to keep it a bit more compact.

Peter Isotalo 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's solve the problem by calling it a bibliography. It is useful to users and to the editors who will actually write some substance in this very thin article. Rjensen 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to solve the problem by cleaning it up first. It looks absolutely awful right now. Not even FAs have bibliographies of this size, and they actually use them.
Peter Isotalo 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two months already and the list is still just a dumping ground for random books on coal mining. Please amend the problem, or I will do it for you and to hell with what I actually know about the literature.
Peter Isotalo 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography is NOT a dumping ground. I selected most of the titles after looking at about 10x as many. The goal is to give people 'something to work with ---if they are interested in the topic they can follow it out through the bibliography. Someday we will have much better text as well, but meanwhile we should go with what strengths we have. Rjensen 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's setting a very low standard for article quality. Content should fit the article, not other way around, especially when it's just sitting there for months. Not even FAs have bibliographies of this size, so you're aiming for an ideal that doesn't exist.
Peter Isotalo 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article contains a valuable bibliography for everyone interested in coal mining. That seems useful. People who want to see more text should write text. Rjensen 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography is too ambitious. Listing some 50 or so titles isn't particularly helpful to the general readership. The extreme bias towards Britain and the US doesn't exactly improve the situation. And, no, adding another 50 titles about "world" coal mining wouldn't solve the problem.
Peter Isotalo 11:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bibliography is useful to Wiki users and will not in any way hurt or hinder anyone. It closely reflects the English language serious literature...Not that British Empire and USA dominated coal mining well int o20c. (There is rather little English language lit on German or French mining--I added what I found.) Rjensen 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list of literature 50+ titles long is not helpful in an encyclopedia. It's too much information for a general article and there are plenty of books on highly specific topics. Some of them aren't even directly related to coal mining. Some examples:
  • The Struggle for Market Power: Industrial Relations in the British Coal Industry
  • Democratic Miners: Work and Labor Relations in the Anthracite Coal Industry, 1875-1925
  • Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 1880–1930
  • Black Coal Miners in America: Race, Class, and Community Conflict
  • Divided Loyalties: The Public and Private Life of Labor Leader John Mitchell
  • The German Tradition of Organized Capitalism: Self-Government in the Coal Industry
Lapses into sidetracks aren't bad per se, but this is ridiculously overwhelming. There are even books that are over a hundred years old listed. And "adding what I found" is a very poor motivation for declaring a list to be both well-balanced and written by "the best scholarship available on coal mining in major countries", no less. It's seems like an obvious bias to me.
You removed the cleanup template after doing only one thing; adding three more titles on coal mining in Europe. I don't see how that constitutes any kind of cleanup. If you don't know where to start, I can do some weeding out for you.
Peter Isotalo 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one editor thinks bibliographies are of no help to him he can skip over them, but let's let the readers have a chance to get material on a vast subject that covers much of the world for many centuries. the books are SELECTED for value, not tossed in a heap--which is more than I can say for the blunderbuss criticisms. The critic might start by adding something positive to the article. Rjensen 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can often be improved by removal, and this is a very good example. Why aren't you trying to address any of the concerns voiced above? You're just repeating that you're a great selector of titles and nothing else. How is that supposed to convince me? And covering "much of the world for many centuries" is exactly what the literature doesn't do. It's primarily concerned with British and US coal mining during the last century-and-a-half.
I can also recommend that you separate the actual references of this article from the bibliography so it's clearer exactly what books have been used to source the content. Bibliographies are often intended to include works that have merely been "inspirations" rather than direct references.
Peter Isotalo 10:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing good, useful, carefully chosen material will not help too many readers. Actually I have been writing text, and just added section on Germany/Ruhr as well as comparative world statistics for 1900. The way I work is scan through lots of books to validate the points made. Editors I suggest can help more by ADDING than by subtracting--we have to cover a vast amount of territory in many countries over hundreds of years. The bibliography of course is in English--this in the English language version of Wiki. (The many books in German can be handled by someone in the German edition--as for Chinese language books--I confess I can't read a word of the language.) Rjensen 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Future diggings[edit]

Thanks :-)

The article still needs a lot of expansion, After all there massive biblogrpahy shows there is a lot that can be written on the subject..

It might also be worht mentioning in passing things like

Davey lamp,Geordie lamp. School of the Mines, the discover of coke, role of coal in gas production etc (gas works were a major coal user in the UK until natural gas was found in the North Sea), Role of coilers in labour relations (like for example the General Strike in 1926) etc etc...

ShakespeareFan00 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I will keep digging into the US materials and add something on Canada. Maybe Germany too. Rjensen 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning unclear -- "...leading the Socialist movement..."[edit]

The meaning of this sentence is unclear:

"Coal miners' labour unions became powerful in many countries in the 20th century, often leading the Socialist movement."

Does this mean "leading," as in "being ahead of," or "leading to..." or something else?

What countries are referred to?

Suggest clarify or delete. Richard Myers 08:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citations from numerous scholars who say the coal miners unions were important factors in left-wing politics in numerous countries (US, Britain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Spain, Italy, Belgium). Rjensen 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it makes sense, thanks. Richard Myers 10:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men, boys, widows, and orphans[edit]

I think the cut of details is mostly reasonable. Someone had added:

"In all, the lives of 362 boys and men were lost in the underground explosion, leaving 250 widows and over 1000 children without support. The victims were actually 956, the vast majority of them (171) were Italians."

The precise meaning of the clause "The victims were actually 956" is unclear, at least to me.

After the cut:

"In all, the lives of 362 men were lost in the underground explosion."

These are worst disasters in each locale, and the number of deaths is the best measurement. Widows and orphans are to be expected in any explosion, and the specific details ultimately ought to be left to an article on each specific incident.

I question the decision to remove "...boys and..." from "...boys and men..." in the American incident, but leave "...and boys..." in "...killed 436 men and boys..." in the British disaster. It is almost as if we're trying to clean up the image of the American coal mining industry, but reporting the British industry in all its ugliness.

The greatest problem is the uneven treatment. In fixing, i suggest that reporting boys dying in coal mine disasters shocks the modern sensibilities, and therefore (for historical accuracy) is a very important detail. Richard Myers 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A generally agree with Richard Myers here except that "boys" is too vague--were they 18 years old? 16? 12? 5? ??? Rjensen 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Boys" is not vague in one very important sense-- twelve-year-olds were called boys then, and are called boys now. They were not called men then, and they are not called men now.
At the time of the explosions they were trapper boys, breaker boys, etc. In many cases the ages of the boys killed while working in the mines were recorded at death. For example:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-35,GGLD:en&q=%22Age+at+death%3a+12+Marital%22
Removing "boys" from the death toll is a nice way to clean up the reputation of the mine operators, who saw the use of children in the mines as a great way to pay lower wages. The practice of editing for such ideological purposes is repulsive. Unfortunately, this appears to be a fairly consistent pattern for Rjensen, across multiple articles. Richard Myers 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people killed were all underground. The breaker boys were above ground and safe. The issue is a little more complex--having to do with adulthood and male roles: getting paid for the boys meant getting better food and clothes. I will not let Wiki be the POV playground for people who seem very poorly informed about labor history. Rjensen 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact of coal's decline[edit]

The final section Social impact of coal's decline... is unreferenced, poorly written, and full of POV. Unless someone either cleans it up or gives me a reason to leave it in, I think that it should be deleted.Plazak 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been written as a result of political problems within the UK, that have resulted from the decline of the industry, as well as other factors. Any offence caused to a qualified individual is neither wanted or looked for by the individual concerned. The section was written in anger as the result of said socio-political problems in Europe.Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages

This section contains a number of assertions that are incorrect. Some of these are marked with{{fact}} flags. Unless references supporting these appear, the section will be deleted. . . .LinguisticDemographer 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statements made in the section are all factualy correct; & have been made in a noble manner, in order to light up the area that all the nazi trained academics are driving the world into, via the internet driven, masses revolution. Wikipedia is becoming nothing more than a masses written; Mien Kamp.

Good. I look forward to seeing your cited verifiable sources.Plazak 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement of verifiable sources; is the very same way the criminals that run the UK; & Europe, get away with their crimes. The worlds peoples, have become so totalitarian, that you can not say a word against the masses, without being butchered in society. So in turn this lends to, a culture of silence; paid of police officials; & rampant un-controlled lawlessness. I do recall; you are from the "States"; & as such, you should feel blessed, in having a, up-standing, moral human-being, such as President, G W. Bush, for a leader. If you did not, you may well have found yourselves, in, "The European, Social Model"; that is; people are killing one another, like animals in the street; & at the same time the masses are moaning about "The Few Bad Apples of Society", they are lapping up, "The University City"; "Euro-Money", that directly, causes the lawlessness. Simple terms; all the old industries & academics, in the UK; post war; were pro "Nazi-Hegel", to the core; & have remained so. Now; we have the "Internet" revolution in Europe; & they are running riot. The young are seeing the "Nazi Cartels", of Europe & Africa; & are attracted to lawlessness. Be proud of a man; who is your leader, for doing the job that he is paid to do; "To serve & protect; you union of the peoples; of the United States, of America". There is very rarely; votes, as far as doing the right thing, when the masses are concerned. For as Bismarck; & his king lamented, with Bismarck sat on a wheel-barrow; "If they [Masses] are allowed to rule, by the mob; first they will kill you; & then, they will kill me". Then after that; a senseless mob will be looking for leaders; & what will they find; nothing but, "The University City", council of twelve; themselves holding all knowledge, in their knowledge banks; & they as the only people that can understand. The Greek-Egyptain; Euro-Death Cult; will have finally caused the Malthusian Catastrophe; all in the name of "Charles Galton, Darwin"; Eugenesist; & Nazi; & killer of his own, destroyer of worlds; "Alan M. Turing". As far as your sources are concerned; if people were willing to talk; & risk, being beaten to death, on the streets of the UK, "Civil War Zone"; then, there would not be a need for attacking the masses on Wikipedia; good & decent of society, would be caring for them, as a, communal case, suitable for aggresive pharmacutical intervention.

Money[edit]

Hi please talk about money for my report that will get &1227890 if it wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.70.133 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

labour party and james kier hardie[edit]

shouldent the the british labour partys part in coal mining history be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, although rather cursorily, if you find the relaibale sources :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

worldwide[edit]

I put on the tag for the article not representing a worldwide view of the subject as some major coal producing regions, such as China are not discussed.Theseeker4 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Japan is not mentioned also and some of the text is not really relevant to the topic of the history of coal mining. As the topic is so big it would be useful to create separate pages for each country. Iain Stuart (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First place to start would be adding sections to the "History" area. There are only two sections before I added the "Middle Ages" and changed "Pre-history" into "Antiquity". AllStarZ (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

I'm attempting to change the groundwork of the article to a more world-wide format, but people keep changing it back.

If you want to help, create sub-articles about coal mining in those specific countries. Coal mining has a diverse history among many countries, but this article focuses too specifically on the importance of coal in the development of Western nations.

And you're not helping by adding more content relating to coal mining in the West.

Editing is a gradual process, and the article is a mess as it is. If you don't like the way I'm changing the article, please post the reasons for your disagreement on the talk page. Or better yet, do something.

AllStarZ (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of coal mining. 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) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit to remove outdated claim of coal being a cheap fuel for electricity generation[edit]

I find the claim about the low cost of coal for electricity generation in a sentence in the first paragraph to be outdated. The sentence currently reads "Coal remains an important energy source because of its low cost and abundance compared to other fuels, particularly for electricity generation[1]"

The source cited is from 2004, and a lot has changed since then. According to the consultancy Lazard, the electricity from new coal-fired power plants is typically more expensive than that from combined-cycle gas plants, wind or solar on an unsubsidized basis [1]. And while the Lazard analysis shows that running existing coal plants is competitive with these sources, it also shows that it is more expensive than running nuclear plants; furthermore in the United States the cost of operating coal plants is typically higher than running combined cycle gas plants.

As such, I would like to propose that this be modified to remove the phrase "particularly for electricity generation", or alternatively to state that "while coal was an inexpensive source of electricity generation in the past, it has been eclipsed in cost by other sources of power."

Croselund20 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful with this one. The Lazard report you quote seems to be dealing with the US where environmental costs are quite high (as in UK and in Europe) and where land is relatively cheap (unlike the UK and Europe). It's not clear that the same figures apply to South America, Africa and Asia. China, in particular, has been investing in coal-fired generation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019

Country order[edit]

If there are no objects, I'm gonna go ahead and order the countries alphabetically. I don't see any significance to the current order. –DMartin 05:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of coal[edit]

All ok 114.134.27.182 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_coal_mining&oldid=1207550188"