Talk:Bethlehem Steel

message: Q: I'm not sure that Bethlehem Steel was founded in South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. I think the proper place is Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (but correctly, the south side of it). I didn't know that South Bethlehem was even a city until I clicked the link, it's out north of Pittsburgh. Bethlehem, PA is out in eastern PA next to Allentown and is where Beth Steel has been for years.
:Yes, I just figured that out too. The truly picky would make a disambiguator for the two South Bethlehems, but I finessed by moving the "South" outside the link; it will likely be a long time before anyone wants to make articles for Bethlehem PA neighborhoods... Stan 04:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting link but currently dead. For the last archived copy, see http://web.archive.org/web/20110927074117/http://www.leo.lehigh.edu/projects/tax/bethhistory.html124.185.122.155 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about South Bethlehem resolved

message: * Strongly suggest against it. This page is about the company, Bethlehem Works is a redevelopment project which has NOTHING to do with this article. 68.39.174.238 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I revised the discussion there to make it NPOV, and explain some of the science behind uranium processing. Existing text implied that uranium processing involves unsafe doses of radiation, which it does not, because fresh uranium is only very weakly radioactive. The CNN article that the earlier discussion was based on was just the reporter repeating what the elderly worker said -- I've added some more scientific sources, but I suggest we may want to remove that discussion entirely, since it just boils down to one guy's attempt at getting worker's comp. Dreadengineer (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950's Fuel rod processing 

message: The comments about the company abandoning the hardworking people of Johnstown, PA seem POV. 
Vorenus 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freight cars 

message: If some of you claim to have photos of Bethlehem Steel plants (again, we need more than the Bethlehem, PA plant), why are more and more pictures of the abandoned plant being added to an already overloaded article?  I can't say that this image adds much to the section it is in, nor does it very easy to even see.  Color would be preferred over black and white, but this picture is simply very dark so as it is.
Also, I cannot help but question some of the pictures being uploaded recently.  this for instance is not public domain since it is not the work of the government.  Other pictures being uploaded have no source information with which to back up the claim that they are indeed public domain or Creative Commons. The359 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More photos

message: The photo is apparently incorrectly titled because the Saucona Iron Company did not build any works. Works were not built until after the company name was changed to Bethlehem Iron Company. Robert M. Hunt (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The date written on the right hand side of the photo says 1896, so I've changed it to Bethlehem Iron Company. The359 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Saucona Iron Company photo 

message: From Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words:
Implicit endorsement of faulty logic.
* The word "clearly" and other words of its kind are often used to tell the reader that some established statements have brought conclusion to an argument or discussion. In some cases, this is all but true; in many others, it does injustice to alternative explanations and facts that may have been ignored.''
The second sentence of the new segment is Clearly, if the company was going to remain viable long term, a new product line needed to be developed..  That's just reason #1 why the weasel word template deserve to be there.
See also:
* The growing perception that a strong navy was needed to protect U.S. trade and prestige made possible the beginnings of what would become a sustained effort create a modern battle squadron. Perception of whom?  And how much did it grow?
* The nation's ironclads, steam cruisers, and gunboats were mostly sold abroad or tied up to rot in the generally inactive navy yards. Most?  What about the rest?
* Almost no new ordnance was produced, and new technology was neglected. What's almost?
Etc. 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected most of those, but your evidence seems primarily based on statistics that just don't exist.  Exact numbers, which seems to be what you're asking for, probably aren't available.  If they are I wouldn't know where to find them.  I think the sentences provide some context for the section but it's not actually important to know exact numbers. I also think it would be a bit better on your part to try to fix such grammatical mistakes instead of sticking numerous tags on the top. I'm also not sure why you think the section isn't neutral.  I agree it may be putting too much significance on Beth Steel's role, but it is the Beth Steel article. You haven't explained the POV issue here. NcSchu(Talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By using terms like "most" or "almost" with a lack of sourcing or statistics, they are weasel words.  It attempts to create a point of view that all ships were sold or that no ordnance was produced.  Yes, it needs references, but there are POV problems beyond just the use of weasel words.  Even though the United States had been among the world's strongest and and most innovative maritime forces during the Civil War?  By 1881 a series of embarrassing international incidents highlighted the deplorable condition of the U.S. fleet. Embarassing is NPOV now?  ...began to shape the course of the Bethlehem Iron Company's future development.?  All of this reads as opinion.  I never said the whole thing was NPOV, but a lot of it is. The359 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Why are both of these two images needed? I still find it sort of odd that out of the dozens and dozens of factories/plants/yards that Bethlehem Steel once had, we (well, some) choose to focus most of the article on the life and afterlife of only one of them. Yes, it perhaps was the main one, but why do we have to follow the construction of something that's not part of Bethlehem Steel. I find the demolition picture to be informative and useful. Perhaps if this one showed more of the actual factory it might be useful, but because it really doesn't show much of anything except some construction trailers, pieces of steel framing, and a tiny crane in the background, it could be anywhere or anything. NcSchu(Talk) 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Bethlehem Steel company no longer exists, so this construction on the site of a former plant has nothing to do with the company.  Yes, it shows off some piece of the old plant, but it adds nothing to the article.  Simply because the article mentions the Sands Beth Works does not mean we need a picture of its construction.  I do not even think the statement of "irony" regarding the steel used to build the Beth Works belongs in this article either, as it would seem to be original research to claim something as irony. The359 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: I worked in the Bethlehem plant 35 years ago, and am very proud of that fact. I left the Lehigh Valley long ago. I am embarrassed by the childish verbal disputes that fill this overlong Talk page. I assume that the entry has been the site of revert wars a well. Wikipedia revert wars and accusations of sock/meat puppetry are among the biggest time wasters of contemporary civilization. My 2 cents worth:
* The entry needs more citations to BS archives (if such exist), to the academic literature on business history (a regrettably undervalued subject), and to articles in the quality business press (e.g., Fortune, Wall Street Journal, New York Times);
* 20 years ago, I read a history of the Sparrow's Point plant; I forget the details. This entry should cite it;
* The photographs included in this entry should be historical and/or show BS in its heyday. They should not show the present day derelict plants. Photographs should be chosen so as to be fair to Burns Harbor, Sparrow's Point, and the shipyards;
* External links to websites containing contemporary and historical photographs are OK. In particular, I see nothing wrong with external links to Sean O'Boyle's photography of derelict plants. Sean is an arty photographer, and like all such photographers, he has a definite point of view. But that is not a reason to exile him from this entry. Instead, the entry should include links to the work of other photographers. Let the viewer pick and choose.
The entry also fails to mention:
*That since the oil shocks of the 1970s, primary steel makers have been failing all over the OECD. That is because the Third World has learned to make steel of acceptable quaility, while paying its labor one fifth or tenth of what the USW and its European Union counterparts demanded. For example, the steel used to make the wrought iron black fence around my yard was imported from Pakistan;
*The growing market share of minimills that recycle scrap. The minimills have lower costs, because they use less energy, they are nonunion;
*Retirees/current work force is much smaller for minimills that began in the 60s and 70s than for old line virgin steel makers like BS. The problem described in this bullet point is by no means peculiar to BS or to primary steel. It also afflicts GM, Ford, and United/American/Delta airlines.123.255.61.154 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The359 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlong and embarrassing

message: This image on the bottom and its caption are misleading. As the beginning of the article correctly states, there are five blast furnaces and they are all still standing. 64.121.150.175 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Last remaining blast furnace"

message: It astounds me how many people have opinions on this article who have yet to contribute to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.136.150 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "all theory and no action"

message: Dear wikipedians, I think that this article would benefit with the inclusion of a brief list of the most significant products, maybe linking to a more extensive list in a separate page. Does anyone know what to use as a "starting point"? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key products list missing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bethlehem Steel. 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/20140529224832/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/04/05/366339/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/04/05/366339/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151110041418/http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/merchantships/postwwii/drillingrigs.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/merchantships/postwwii/drillingrigs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102224214/http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/bethbeaumont.htm to http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/bethbeaumont.htm
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) 02:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lead section on this is completely uncited and parts of it are over eight years old. It also uses weasel words and the last section reads like an essay conclusion. Do we just need to put the work in to get citations for it, or should we rewrite? Qxu21 (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section