Talk:Andrew Ure

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Industrial design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Faraday claim

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dated???

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)[reply]

Matthew Clydesdale quote

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marx and Ure

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)[reply]