Talk:Andrew Ure

message: The phrase "Contemporary scientist Michael Faraday said that not one of Ure's chemical analyses was ever impugned." and its reference ("{cite book | last = Copeman | first = W.S.C. | title = "Andrew Ure, M.D., F.R.S. (1778-1857)" | publisher = Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine | year = 1951 }}") appears to be lifted directly from Mortenson (e.g. here). (i) this is WP:COPYVIO. (ii) (unless Trabucogold can claim to have viewed this 58 yo publication themselves) we do not accept an unreliable source's interpretation of it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faraday claim 

message: :I went to the source, Copeman, 1951 and found many useful quotes. But now, Copeman is call "dated" and Undue and so unacceptable.  Farrar, 1973, (see external link) says this about Copeman's article;  "The present sketch [by Farrar] should be read as complementing an account published some years ago by his great-great-grandson [copeman], based on family papers, but dealing hardly at all with his scientific and industrial work." (p. 299) (This quote can been read on the first page of the paper displayed on the external link site, or if you want a copy, I have a .pdf i can send you.)  Farrar's paper does not contradict Copeman in any way and in fact quotes from it many times. I can find nearly all the same quotes i used from Copeman, but also found in Farrar's paper.  So is Farrar's peer reviewed paper now also DATED and "undue" because he quoted a dated and Undue paper????  And upon what basis are things suddenly dated and Undue?  Copeman is a peer reviewed source in a reliable publication.  Farrar is a peer reviewed source in a reliable publication.  It looks to me like you just make things up to fit what ever you want, twisting the WP policies in the process.  Me thinks you are protesting too much.
:This article is a biography. And everything I put in it are of interest as part of his life.  This article could be fleshed out to many, many pages using Farrar and Copeman for they are both largely biographical.  His connection to Scriptural geology is largely irrelevant. Farrar said, "The System of Geology was not a success, even among readers who might have been expected to be sympathetic, and it was soon forgotten." p. 312  The reason why is, "Like the New System of Geology, the Philosophy of Manufactures came just too late, at a time when the positions it so noisily defended were being quietly abandoned, leaving the author in slightly ridiculous isolation." p. 319 Nevertheless, he made a large contribution to Chemistry and science in general and for this the quotes I had are worthy being there.   Trabucogold (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dated???

message: Why do we have three different sources cited for this quote? Particularly when it seems to be a contemporaneous report, and all the citations given are to sources many decades later. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and reviewed how this section was developed.  It appears that the quote was put together from three sources, each one giving more detail to the event.  Perhaps they need not be put together, or perhaps rewritten as not a quote.  It is a remarkable and interesting story.  AshforkAZ (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a problem when three different sources are put together into a single quote. I think it is also a problem when material is presented as a quote without identifying who the original speaker is who is being quoted. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew Clydesdale quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Ure. 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/20120214165734/http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/ure/PhilosophyManufactures.pdf to http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/ure/PhilosophyManufactures.pdf
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) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) was translated in French in 1836 and published in Paris and Brussels: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k857551/. Marx, living in Brussels in 1847 and writing in French Misère de la philosophie (The Poverty of Philosophy) read and quoted the French version of Ure’s book. Marx citing Ure is not treated in the page, but I mention this here as a reminder, just in case. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx and Ure