Talk:Cold iron

message: Most blades in the 1600's would have been produced using steel instead of iron. Cold forging is a technique used in working iron, analogous to wrought iron, that does not require the iron to be heated (see Forging). Assuming iron working is similar to copper working, working the iron cold will damage the crystalline matrix but also harden the material until annealing occurs. Note that, as with copper, this will make the item more brittle and will prevent it from holding an edge, so it was not useful for most applications. However, many simple items, such as horseshoes and nails, were often worked cold for expediency (see horseshoes). 
As the definition used to define cold iron is clearly after the date at which steel replaced iron in common metalworking, is the definition suggested considered to be valid? Can any of the data referenced here be improved on?
--141.214.17.5 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Wikieditors 

message: I'm beginning to think that part of the problem here is that we're dealing with a "loaded" term.  In some contexts it's clearly just poetic license, while in others it's technical jargon, in many cases it's folkloric (slippery at best), and other uses are purely fictitious.  Perhaps we should think of this more as a disambiguation page?  I'm not saying that we should create multiple articles out of it. Well, maybe the mythology stuff, that's a whole other ball of wax anyway.  Comments? --Dunkelza 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: I know of no mythological support for "cold iron" being of meteoric origin. As far as I know, this interpretation of "cold iron" comes from fantasy tole-playing games. I am going to add a  tag. If no one can produce a citation for this assertion within a reasonable amount of time, I think this assertion should be amended or removed.
I can't see anything in here anymore that would warrant this article as being listed with those with unverified statements. However, when I tried to remove the appropiate tag, I couldn't find it anywhere. Any suggestions as to where it's hiding?  Arbadihist
:I agree. There is no source I can find about cold iron being meteoric in origin. (JP)
::I think it's less specifically RPG and more related to 20th century fantasy literature in general.  Ford MF 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably correct.  I can't find any sources, though, so maybe we should nix the meteoric bit? --Dunkelza 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already removed by me along with all the other nonsense in the article. I can't believe that bit stayed there as long as it did. DreamGuy 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meteoric Iron

message: I just cleaned up a bunch of poorly written and inflammatory edits to the main page that basically called the people who wrote it ignorant and uneducated and called all the points crap without proposing any sources for what they were saying. Wikipedia is not your personal message board/flame-playground. Keep it professional and civil. Furthermore, the article does cite sources and provide references. They do not support all of the claims in it, but it is not without reference. The disputed tag applies, the references required only applies to a few specific comments in the article, so does not belong at the top of the page. (JP)
:There were no sources for what the article was claiming, so complaining that I did not give any sources is utter nonsense. And the references that are here only support the most trivial claims in the article and not the major ones, the very ones that were used to rationalize even having an article on it in the first place. DreamGuy 11:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are provided.  If you don't bother to read them or to consult other sources to learn anything about blacksmithing, that's your problem.  Don't mess with an encyclopedic article or insult the people who DID their homework, just because you refuse to.  --Dunkelza 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you call using unreliable sources and what you picked up in fantasy gaming "homework"... nope, sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not fantasypedia. DreamGuy 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the people who first helped to bring this article up from stub-dom, though I haven't improved as much as I could, being lazy, I feel the need to comment. First, I let the wrought iron references slide because I didn't have enough time to properly research at that time. Having looked into a little, I have arrived at my present train of thought, which is that while iron was believed to have magical properties whether cold forged or not, the origin of the separate term, "cold iron" may have originated with the methods of smithing that don't use heat. The term "cold iron" probably did not have an especial significance in the period during which this belief was widely prevalent in most classes of society, but eventually this term did arise, and it did acquire its present association with superstitition, which may or may not have come from modern fantasy, thus, I think that a reference to smithing, if verifiable is worth mentioning. Even supposing that the modern meaning of cold iron does come from fantasy, that still doesn't make the topic "Cold Iron" non-encyclopedic. And I agree, in the future, we should all try to be civil, and that includes your responses in this talk page, Dreamguy.Arbadihist 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "present train of thought" doesn't interest me... that's mere original research and cannot be allowed into the encyclopedia. Unless you can provide real, reliable sources to prove what you say, especially as it contradicts the sources in the article about horseshoes and etc., you absolutely cannot put your mere beliefs into the article. If you want "civil" you and your cohort have to stop labeling badly needed fixes to the article as "vandalism"... and respect is something that is earned, your actions on this article show that there is no reason to respect you at this time. If you want to take the time to educate yourself, both about the topic and how Wikipedia works, then you will ge my respect. Until that time you're just someone who is trying top push some fantasy you cooked up in your head into what's supposed to be a scholarly article. DreamGuy 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the double post, but after looking furhter into the above references edits, I have to say that you were completely out of line, Dreamguy. When you come to an article that people are working on (Though I do chastise myself for my sloth) I would expect some common courtesy such as reasoned arguments as to why you are making extreme changes, and then make the changes in a scholarly way. What you did was tantamount to vandalism. It was rather exhibitionist in my opinion. Why don't we talk about this reasonably instead.Arbadihist 09:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, from your comments and actions on this article, it's clear that your version of "out of line" and what "scholarly way" means are totally at odds with how Wikipedia does things. Fixing an article so it's more factual is NOT VANDALISM. It's more vandalism to restore an article to a bad version based off of bad fantasy fiction you read and got suckered into believing.DreamGuy 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insulting and poorly written critiques on this page

message: It has nothing to do with Puck. I don't know how the editor got that idea, but it is a Christian allegory about a rebellious baron. No fairies in it.--Jtle515 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kipling wrote two works titled "Cold Iron".  One is the poem you refer to, the second is a short story which begins "When Dan and Una had arranged to go out before breakfast, they did not remember that it was Midsummer Morning. "  (And can be found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=36516&pageno=7 ) 75.48.27.216 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kipling's poem