Talk:Julius Kahn (inventor)

citation style
User: Nikkimaria - Removed citation tag again. It is in a DYK queue about to come out as an official DYK in the next couple of days. Several experienced editors have worked on this article, including one that is a Campus Ambassador for a University, and we have not come across the citation problem you are speaking about. Apparently it is so small that only you can see it. Since your "speciality" is fixing citations and repairing formating problems, I suggest you fix it since no other editor has found it yet. This way then we can all learn what it is you are speaking of and use that improvement for future problems. Since the problem is so small that several very experienced editors have not seen it yet, it does not warrant a citation tag - just as it is about to become a DYK. Please do not put the tag back on and just fix the problem instead. Otherwise if you can not fix the problem, then it is NOT a problem, and your tagging could be considered vandalism. Thanks for your cooperation on this. We are looking forward to the improvement, to see what the problem is, so we can use that improvement in future articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not possible for me to fix the problem because it's not possible for me to tell what the intended style is. The article's citations presently have four different date styles; several have data listed in the wrong parameters; some are incomplete; some list as publishers entities that aren't publishers; some include other information that, looking at the source, does not appear to be correct; and many have other formatting issues. Taken together, this is not a small problem, and tagging is warranted; hostility, on the other hand, is not. Citation style is not an issue that precludes DYK status, and there's no reason why valid tags cannot be present during DYK, so it really doesn't matter that this is in queue. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are pretty vague on your answers as there seems to be nothing specific that can be fixed, that would satisfy the problem. You leave it open that no matter what is fixed and corrected that there will always be some other nit picky problem that you can turn into a mountain. For example when you say, "It's not possible for me to fix the problem because it's not possible for me to tell what the intended style is" = doesn’t matter. Even if you got it wrong, the problem would have been fixed (had you tried).

I’ll attempt to correct the issues that you are concerned with, that no other editor brought up, but I have the feeling that no matter what is corrected you will find something you don’t like. Keep in mind that this is a new article and of course I left room for expansion and improvement. This is your opportunity to show what skills you have as a copyeditor to show off your talents = make the necessary corrections and show everyone what you can do, instead of just making noise. Your "specialty" seems to be MOS problems and formatting issues. Can you show us what you can do, or will it just be more excuses?

Let’s break these down to the various pieces to try to get fixed and corrected accordingly.


 * As you say:


 * 1. "several have data listed in the wrong parameters" This is your opportunity to show your copyedit talents = correct the way they should be.


 * 2 "some are incomplete" = correct the way they should be.


 * 3 "some list as publishers entities that aren't publishers" = correct the way they should be.


 * 4 "some include other information that, looking at the source, does not appear to be correct" = pretty vague! You fix, since obviously you studied the source already and know what it takes to make it correct!


 * 5 "and many have other formatting issues." = again, pretty vague! This is your specialty and your opportunity to show off your copyediting skills. Therefore you fix accordingly and then it will be exactly as you like.

You had to group all these ‘mole hills’ together to justify a citation tag. The only real issue I can conclude, a minor one at that, is that there was four different date styles. I fixed that and this little issue certainly didn’t warrant a citation tag. It could have easily been fixed by picking a style and following through to make all the others that style = which is what I did, and what you didn't do. The other issues are so vague that they can’t be fixed. You will have to fix the other issues, then they will be exactly as you like them. Other editors don’t have a concern with these issues = many experienced editors worked on the article and none brought up these issues.

Here is another option I propose to get all these issues corrected as per consensus:
 * Leave the citation tag off.
 * Let the article go to DYK (a few days from now). It will be viewed by thousands and IF there is a concern, it will get corrected by somebody automatically. If nobody brings up your concerns and issues, THEN that is the consensus. It has been viewed 400 times to date and nobody yet has brought up your concerns. Let’s see what happens at DYK.

There, I just solved all the concerns and issues AND the most important part is that you don’t have to do anything now. Just sit back and enjoy the show.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I'm afraid you haven't solved everything - what you've done is removed a cleanup tag that's still applicable. That's not "consensus" in any sense of the word, so please don't do that. Two of the five remaining issues are significant enough singly to warrant tagging (2 and 4), so the tag stays 'til those at least are fixed. Perhaps the tag will encourage readers to get involved in fixing the article or making other changes to improve it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I have made extensive edits to the citations and elsewhere in the article to improve deficiencies. Now the only significant issue remaining with regards to citation style are some missing page numbers - once you add those you can remove the tag. However, in the process of doing that I noted that one of the sources likely fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP - if theses are rarely reliable, it is unlikely that undergraduate papers would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the improvements. Added the page numbers you requested. Removed citation tag per your instructions. Have no idea which source you are referring to that might fail WP:Scholarship. Apparently the nearly 1000 editors that viewed the article also have no idea what it is you speak of, as none brought it up. Therefore this is not an issue = per concensus.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One could equally argue that since the citation in question is tagged as potentially unreliable and remained so tagged while those nearly 1000 readers (not editors) viewed it, it is the consensus that it is an issue. Or one could realize that readers rarely chime in on talk pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I get it = old age! Everything that Frank Sedlar said in his paper on "Engineering Industrial Architecture" matches exactly with all the dozens of sources I used in my research. See this Flickr video I made July 18, 2014. If you will look in his Bibliography section at the end of his paper it lists several excellent reference sources. Many of these same sources are what I used to write up the article. Nobody has challenged any of these references. Most of the books you can get through your local library through the ILL system, just like I had to do. Most are NOT on Google Books = you have to get the actual hard copy book. Some of my favorites that I think you will find most informative, since I see you are really into reinforced concrete, are
 * Marquis, Albert Nelson. “Biography of Julius Kahn.” The Book of Detroiters: A Biographical Dictionary of Leading Living Men of the City of Detroit. 1914.
 * TRUSCON. “TRUSCON: The First Fifty Years, 1907-1957.” April 1957.
 * Trussed Concrete Steel Co. “Kahn Building Products.” 1913.
 * Trussed Concrete Steel Co. “Kahn System of Reinforced Concrete.” June. 20, 1904.
 * Trussed Concrete Steel Co. “United Steel Sash.” 1912.


 * See nine minute YouTube video on Frank Sedlar as the winner of a 2012 - 2013 Undergraduate Research Award for this paper.
 * Based on this overwhelming evidence to show proof of reliable source I have removed the tag on Frank Sedlar's "Engineering Industrial Architecture: Albert Kahn and the Trussed Concrete Steel Company." Most of the 1032 readers are editors (User Names or I.P. addresses).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Potential editors != actual editors; we do not consider people who actually haven't edited to be editors, even though they could potentially edit at some point in the future.
 * Theses and dissertations use excellent reference sources too, and yet this doesn't make them reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So if everything he says matches everything that's in all the other sources out there, why not just use those sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gisela
Julius Kahn's daughter, mentioned in passim, was Gisela Gresser, many times US Women's Chess Champion. Probably worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.220.2 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist User:Doug Coldwell GA articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page—in particular, the Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)