Talk:Bethlehem Steel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Q: Im a photographer and a designer not a writer, but does anyone think this article is a little short? This is on the most significant Industrial sites in our nation, that has recently (and about 10 years ago) had major portions demolished, wiping sections of our industrial history off the planet. We all need to take this article very seriously and make sure that it represents the significance of the site. Wheres the Beef? Id be happy to provide photos and to research and use public domain historic photos if the content was a bit richer, you dig? —urbanarcheolgy

Question about South Bethlehem resolved[edit]

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)

A: South Bethlehem was a separate municipality at the time that Bethlehem Steel was founded. Bethlehem and South Bethlehem merged in 1917. See

Interesting link but currently dead. For the last archived copy, see (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed no-longer-working external link[edit]

Someone can put it back later if it proves to be OK. Highly dysfunctional right now (crashed both Firefox and IE7).


  • Strongly suggest against it. This page is about the company, Bethlehem Works is a redevelopment project which has NOTHING to do with this article. 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Yes, the topics of Bethlehem Steel Corporation and the Bethlehem Works redevelopment project are related, but that doesn't mean that their Wikipedia articles have to be merged, any more than the article Henry Ford needs to be merged with Ford Motor Company. In fact, merging them would just foster ungainliness. The Bethlehem Steel article should eventually grow to be plenty big all by itself, when the history is gradually developed beyond stub status. It is perfectly fine to have a link that takes the reader to the Works article. The articles don't have to be cobbled together. Lumbercutter 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Result of the merge discussion = few people cared enough to weigh in, but those who did said no. I removed the tag. — Lumbercutter 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1950's Fuel rod processing[edit]

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)

Freight cars[edit]

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

You can't dispute the truth, no matter how much it hurts. There is no way a casino can replace a steel mill when it comes to America's former industrial might. MakeChooChooGoNow 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


I have a bunch of photos from the steel. I would like to share some on this site. How do people feel about adding a photo album to this page. Also, I changed the photo that was on the Lehigh Valley and Pennsylvania pages. I would appreciate feedback. Jschnalzer 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Naval Historical Center has wonderful aerial photograph of the Bethlehem-Hingham shipyard dated February 1944, its catalogue number is 80-G-218183 and if somebody could get and upload a copy it would make a great addition to this article (alas it is not one of the images that the Naval Historical Center has available on-line). As I understand it images from the Naval Historical Center are public domain in the United States because they are a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of 17 U.S.C.§ 105. Thefrood 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to the Bethlehem Steel page, at I think that the photographs in my essay of Bethelehem Steel, all taken in 2006, give a very in depth look at the unseen buildings, architecture and hardware found at The Steel as it was just prior to the Casino construction. I did add a link myself, and it was removed, I wan't sure how to use the talk area to discuss the issue until now. I personally think the photographs add a great deal to the understanding of the scale and complexity of the Bethlehem Steel site, and show many buildings that have now been removed for parking lots. Any feedback would be appreciated. Soboyle (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Great photos. I would be in favour of a link, but it's up to a consensus of editors to decide, and not the photographer. Would you consider releasing any under GFDL, as the Victoria and Albert Museum has done? See a list of the uploads here. That way your work can be used freely throughout wikipedia, and you would be credited on the image page. Have a look at the explanation at User_talk:VAwebteam#GFDL. NB such images should not be watermarked. Tyrenius (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than okay in seeing some of these photos uploaded and included in the article, but I still disagree with the External Link. NcSchu(Talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think the photos in the article would be a beneficial addition, that is an argument for linking to them, if they can't be included in the article. Tyrenius (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. The external link looks to me as the artist's attempt at advertising - his art website has no relevance to this article. There's a huge difference between in-text photos and an external link to a gallery of them. I support the former. NcSchu(Talk) 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth - I think the photos are valuable and worthwhile and should be here. Modernist (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, those photos belong linked to this article, despite the OPINIONS of the359 and NcSchu who keep touting the rules. I understand that wiki rules dictate that you cannot link to your personal site for self promotion, I think its time to think outside the box here and come to a concensus that those photographs add infinite value to the article. That particular type of industrial architecture is specific to this company and therefore directly related to the company contrary to the limited view of user the359. People need to see them, and to deprive them of the images, which in my opinion, at this point offer far more words than the skimpy article created here and until the "writers" of this article find a way to enrich the writing beyond its bare bones state i vote they stay. Perhaps the359 should stick to editing racecar articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanarcheology (talkcontribs) 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much more simple this could be. Wikipedia's article on Bethlehem Steel is about the company, their pdocutions, history, plants, and other such stuff. This is not an article about industrial decay. This is not an article about photography. This is not an article about showing off how only one of Bethlehem Steel's plants makes for lovely pictures. It would be much more informative and helpful to the article if we had general pictures of Sparrows Point or Burns Harbor, not close ups of some machinery and the inside of a gutted building. Find me some pictures of the coke ovens in use, find me a logo, find me some pictures of the rollers, find me some pictures of their former steel reserves, find me some pictures of their rail car production facilities. Don't find me some art.
Wikipedia is here to present information that is based on fact, hence we should only link to websites which discuss the company. Your artistic opinion of what makes for good pictures is not informative, is not enriching, is not improving, is not educational, and is not helping this article, or letting people find out about the entity that was Bethlehem Steel. If you want art, contribute to urban decay or start an article on industrial decay. The359 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you're going to claim a limited view, make sure I don't have roughly 35 years invested in this company until they shut their doors, and have been residing once again in the Lehigh Valley because of this company for the past seven years. The359 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recieved many e-mails from former Bethlehem Steel employees who were very happy to find the link to my photographs of The Steel, and also many e-mails from former employees families, tellng me how it gave them a perspective about what it must have been like working there. I think you can tell from my work that this is not some money making scam, but a serious effort to record the Bethlehem works before they are changed beyond recognition. In my mind Bethlehem Steel is linked to a place, not an abstract company, so the argument that this is about "The Company" isn't convincing. We aren't talking about some pencil pushers sitting behind desks here, we are talking about one of the great steel making works in history, employing tens of thousands of workers at this location, and this location is in Bethlehem PA, and these are photographs of what that place looked like in 2006. Soboyle (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about an encyclopedic article about a company and its numerous steel plants. There is only a single line in this entire article about Burns Harbor, the largest construction project in the United States at the time of its creation. I think something like that is more important than photos of ruins. If you want to show hardships, find me photos of people actually working in the plants, not artsy black and white photos like Image:Bethlehemsteel14.jpg which do nothing to actually show anything about the company. Sure it may be nostalgic and such, but it is not informative or encyclopedic. Hell, there's not a single picture in this entire article of steel being made. That speaks volumes of this entire debate over photographs. All these links are just photographs of abandonment. If you want to show the company to be "the great steel making works", show them doing that. The359 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As for not being in this for money, I cannot help but notice that all of your contributions to Wikipedia since 2006 have involved adding links to your website's photo essays to various articles. The359 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicken soup in search of chicken[edit]

I can see both sides of this debate (delete these photos versus keep them). The359 actually makes really good points in his recent comments above. This article needs a lot more info and lots of photos from the days of busy production. To focus heavily on arty photos of postindustrial decay really does represent a tangent away from what this article needs to be. But I think the answer is that it needs BOTH. Eventually this article needs to be developed to the point that it shows plenty of the steel being made and talks about things like how amazing Burns Harbor was when it was designed (full vertical integration, fully served by deep-draft ships, etc). It should also then let the reader see some photos of the subsequent decay at the Bethlehem PA plant. But I think the way to get there is not by *taking away* the arty content—it is by *adding* the industrial content. The reason we've been too heavy on arty decay so far is simply by the nature of this project. This project is made by volunteers, and the easy starting point for most volunteers is the arty decay. For every 8,000 people who say, "ooh, look at the arty photos of the big rusty things—I think my grandpa used to work with those", there are only 8 people who both (a) have knowledge of the business, industry, and history, have read the monographs, etc, and (b) also are volunteering their time to write it up for Wikipedia. So I guess my point is, we're trying to make chicken soup and we currently have all water and almost no chicken, because water is plentiful but chicken is harder to come by. But the answer is not to eliminate all water; it is to find the elusive chicken and add it. Now, that being said, there needs to be a limit on how much water we keep around here in the absence of more chicken. So a few arty decay photos are OK, but don't add so many that they steal the focus of the article. And as for Bethlehem Steel Corporation being all about the one plant, or this article being only about that one plant, that is very inaccurate. It was a huge corporation that absorbed many smaller ones and had many facilities across the USA and elsewhere. For example, its shipyards on both coasts are every bit as key to understanding its history as the one riverbank in South Bethlehem, PA. It is NOT all about Bethlehem, PA in particular—no more than U.S. Steel was only about Pittsburgh, PA. </2¢> — ¾-10 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that all of the photos used on the article should be removed, there are some that I believe are informative when it comes to the decay and destruction of the plant (Image:Bethlehemsteel40.jpg and Image:Bethlehemsteel01.jpg for example). They inform people of the state of the primary facilities of the company after they not only closed the plant, but were bought out. The problem is with photos which are there simply to show off the industrial decay of a facility, and tell nothing of Bethlehem Steel. External links that had great modern photos of facilities, machinery are even better if they have explanations and text of what they are displaying, what they meant to the company, and so on. Image:Bethlehemsteel36.jpg would be better if it showed the actual machinery, or explained exactly what was performed in this building or why it was important to Bethlehem Steel. As it is now, it's honestly just an empty carcass that is connected to Bethlehem Steel.
This link I chose to keep when I went through and cleaned up the External Links section. The photos are very artistic, but there is also a large written history section and some of the photos offer descriptions of what they depict, what the machinery is and does, etc. Hence most of the removal has not been to eliminate the artsy pictures, but to moderate and concentrate on those that inform and help the article as a whole.
It would actually be best if we had articles on the specific steel plants such as Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, and Burns Harbor, but this is long down the road. Most of these pictures and links could then be used on a specific article on the Bethlehem Plant, but I still think that some moderation is necessary. The decline of the plant is a nice story, but it is not the complete or primary story. The359 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Three-quarter-ten, my photographs are just one very small part of the picture of what Bethlehem Steel is and was, I have a hard time understanding the attitude of some of the posters here who seems to take personal offense to anything but their own view of how Bethlehem Steel should be presented. Different perspectives of this place can only enrich the knowledge base, not take away from it. If you don't like the 'artsy' photographs, fine, many other will appreciate them. Someone else will step up with photographs of the Plant in use, with plenty of photographs of steel pouring from a tapped furnace or laddle. Likewise with the other Bethlehem Steel locations and products. If you are really trying to build an encyclopedic article on Bethlehem Steel, allow different perspectives and view points. Soboyle (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with what perspective is painted of Bethlehem Steel (I can't really see how decaying buildings paints any picture of the company), it has to do with what is encyclopedic and what is allowed on Wikipedia. When the majority of the external links on this article were to industrial decay, it seemed as though some wanted to emphasis a very minor aftermath of the history of the company. Photos are fine, but we'd prefer text. The359 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It obviously does have something to do with what perspective is painted of bethlehem steel, you just made that very clear 359. You obviously have an emotional bias here that will surely lead us down one road. No one ever said that the ruins of the plant were to be played up as the most important thing, which is exactly why seans photo essay is an EXTERNAL LINK. It is not the main article. Its an external link to the state of those buidings a few years ago, you CANNOT refute that they do not add anything to the article because that is your opinion. If you cannot see how decaying buildings paint any picture of the company then you are not the kind of person we need editing this article, because when you look at those photos you can see the entire history of the company and our industrial history from start to finish, if you cant see then we cant help you, but we can help everyone else who thinks that is valuable. If you want to help this article then start writing it. If you have so much experience and expertise here then stop worrying about external links to 'artsy photographs' and start doing your part, we are certainly doing ours. If people do step up and actually create some writing here I will help with researching and providing historical imagery to go with it. I have hundreds of historical photos to use during the plants operation that are public domain but we dont have enough content to accommodate it. By the way, thats a 5 to 2 Vote on keeping the link. The internet is the ultimate democracy. They are demolishing the rest of the EFM building this week. If you in the area i suggest you go down to 3rd street and take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by urbanarchelogy

Your answer is nothing but an opinion either...and both you and User:soboyle clearly have biases at well. NcSchu(Talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS - So in summary, Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD. Your opinion on what "the internet is" is moot.
If you believe this has anything to do with perspective, then you haven't been reading a damn word I've said. This has to do with what is encyclopedic, what is allowed on Wikipedia, and what this article is actually about. I'd say the person who is attempting to belittle and insult those who oppose his opinion might just be the one with bias.
We already have photographs as to the "state of the buildings" (again, for just ONE of many plants), and we already have a link to a photo essay that ALSO provides information in the way of text and descriptions. 5 pictures of the exterior of a steel plant don't inform anyone of anything. You can barely even tell the condition of the plant. This website does have photos of the ruins that show the state of the interior, exterior, as well as the remains of older equipment, their uses, and so on.
Decaying buildings do not inherently paint any picture about a company unless it's to show neglect, which is hardly the case here. All you are showing is that a steel plant and the company that founded it are gone. Any genius can figure that out. Decaying buildings don't tell you anything about the history of the company, especially in the link that you attempt to keep adding.
If you want me to do my part, then don't complain when I tell you the rules of this website and do my part to remove the clutter that doesn't belong. I'd write for this article if it was my area of expertise and I had sources and such that I could offer, but it is not. That doesn't mean I can't attempt to improve the state of the article in any way, shape, or form.
If you have photos of the plant in operation that are able to be used on Wikipedia, then put them there! We have three photos (even more so before I cleaned up this article) so as it is of an abandoned plant, and you're complaining about lack of content as the reason you can't put up good informative pictures? Are you joking? You claim that you're not trying to emphasis decay while you now claim to be sitting on useful pictures but wont upload them but have no problem filling the article with ruins at 300pixels that cluttered the article?
I am honestly amazed that you expect to be taken seriously on this. The359 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The359 is citing correct policy. There seems to be possible conflict of interest going on here and the linked photographs (while very nice) are artistic in nature, not illustrative. Additionally, it is preferred that encyclopedic content be made available on Wikipedia itself so that the article may be considered complete without referring the reader to any external resources. If any of you own the copyrights to those photos and would like to contribute one or two under a free license, it could then be included directly in the article and address concerns about "missing information." If you own the copyrights and are not willing to contribute any images, that is your prerogative, but you are back to the conflict of interest situation and should not be attempting to link to work you own. Personally, I would prefer that the link be omitted due to the reasons The359 outlined.
Also, everyone involved needs to stop re-adding and re-deleting the link from the article. The next person or people who do may be temporarily blocked for violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Please read over that page because you have all now been given warning to stop the reverts.
Let me also re-emphasize that consensus is by no means a vote, and must be established by finding common ground here. If you can't do that, you may consider going to the next step in dispute resolution. Again I emphasize that reverting the article is NOT a part of dispute resolution and persisting in this will only get you blocked from editing. -- mattb 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More photos[edit]

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)

The Saucona Iron Company photo[edit]

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)

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)


First of all let me say that I find it strangely ironic that User: would call for the discussion to be taken to talk and then go ahead and start an edit war. This article has a problem, and it's never going to be stopped as long as people keep reverting each other's edits and act like they own this article and its content. We must make logical picking and choosing of the most relevant images, namely ones that aren't of the same thing and ones that actually have some meaning to the reader. And I'm sorry, User:Urbanarcheology, but the image of the "High House" I removed does nothing for the reader. Please explain the "importance" you claim in your edit comment. It seems to show nothing but an empty steal-reinforced concrete shell. If this keeps going on, I'm going to call for this page to be protected so that these issues can be resolved. Wikipedia is not a repository of images and as editors have pointed out previously, a few of these photos just don't enhance the article. Unless the size of this article can be doubled, at least two images have to go. NcSchu(Talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The High House picture is useless as it stands now. Guns may have been fabricated there, but the picture itself merely shows an empty building. Not very informative. Find a picture of guns BEING fabricated in the High House, and it'd be relevant. The picture of warships being built shows a much better example of Bethlehem Steel assisting in armed forces than an empty buildingly formerly used to build guns, but not actually showing that.
The black and white picture of the Bethlehem Plant is possible to keep, but redundant. We already have a color picture of the plant that is not only clearer, but also better at showing the state of the plant nowadays.
However, I have recently noticed the picture features a watermark, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. If we keep the black and white photo instead, it should be moved down to the location of the color photo. The logo of the company should really be at the top (and we could also possibly add an infobox to contain it in.) The359 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Im going to remove the color image and move the black and white below the logo. The color photo is not clearer, is not of good quality and no one is to say that color or black and white images are more informative that the other, thats just a left brain way of thinking. I can see through your lens and my own... It takes all kinds of people to produce content like this and reverting the article back to your preferred version is narrow. The image of the High House, which you have proven neither of you know anything about is not 'useless' it shows a 100 ton overhead crane, shows clearly the scale necessary to heat treat 14" guns for warships into the oil quenching tanks below. It also shows a very important style of industrial architecture specific to this company (I will add more info to the caption) That building looks the same as it did when it was in production you just dont know enough about it to understand that. Please dont let your ignorance of what is really in that picture prevent someone else from better understanding the use of that building and its historical siginificance. If you think that the photo of the high house 'does nothing for the reader' then it seems strange that the Smithsonian Institution has retained it in its permanent collection for the very reason it preserves the historic equipment it shows. Just because it doesnt do anything for you obviously doesnt mean anything to the rest of the world who can benefit from it. This article is not about you, its about sharing information with the world, which I have been very generous to do with my work. If you are so concerned about the length of the article, once again, instead of nit picking over details perhaps you should help to write it, something neither one of you have done. At least 359 found some good images but said clearly before he would prefer text so how bout doing a little research on that so i can worry about photos. Ive made it very clear that I am not a writer, that is the thing i know least about. You need to understand what you are good at and do it. Im good at photography (specifically industrial architecture) and using climbing equipment to place pro 100 feet up on an 80 year old blast furnace thats rotting away to secure myself and my gear in the proper position to take photographs of that quality, in order to preserve our industrial history, and to give it back to people so that they can see it themselves and dont have to put themselves in that danger. If you you dont have any photo editing experience dont do it, If you dont know how to research content and include it then dont do it. Everyone wants to contribute but you two have contributed the least and continue to complain the most. You dont see Robert Hunt complaining do you? Thats because he is scientist and a scholar and has been working on this article long before you two showed up and continues to make valid edits to the article. Dont complain, do some research, add some text, and help to make this article better. -urbanarcheology

You should probably do research because in fact I have contributed text to this article. The fact that a photograph may or may not be on a "permanent collection" is irrelevant, this is not the smithsonian institute and you don't know their reasonings for even including the photograph. Stop making baseless accusations just to prove your point. We're trying to make this article better. It is you, with your lack of experience and ignorance of the things that make Wikipedia what it is that are hurting the article. NcSchu(Talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck it, I'm going for Dispute Resolution. I'm tired of this falling on deaf ears. The359 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank God. NcSchu(Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

that sounds great, and while this dispute is going on I will continue to conduct oral history interviews of steelworkers in the area, to help paint a picture of the working class men and women that helped build this country from the ground up... and of course to continue photographing the demolition of historic buildings as our industrial history is knocked to the ground. For the record I do know why the Smithsonian collected the image because I am working directly with them Urbanarcheology (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not that that particularly matters regarding the article and these issues because you can't put original research on the encyclopedia, which is exactly what you're collecting. Your status/connections/job/etc. don't mean you have more voting power than other users. NcSchu(Talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

stay in school nickUrbanarcheology (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks NcSchu(Talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are working for the Smithsonian, and that is your picture that you took, why on Jeremy Blakeslee's website, which you cite as the original photographer, is there no mention of working with the Smithsonian? In fact, your user page on Wikipedia lists multiple publishers and companies that are not listed on Jeremy Blakeslee's website.

If you are not Jeremy Blakeslee (most likely User talk:Jbdesign2), then the photo isn't yours to begin with. If you are Jeremy Blakeslee, and the the photograph is yours, then I'd appreciate a Smithsonian Catalog number if possible.

You've had problems uploading photos with information as to where you obtained them, as well as uploading under incorrect licenses, so I think this is necessary. The359 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, the website which you link to from your user page, Meat Market Magazine, features the photo of High House. Except, it has been cropped differently, and in fact it actually shows the bottom of the High House, oil basins and all! One would think that if you took the photo, and that you still had the photo, you would upload the full size, full resolution version, not a small 466x468 copy that cuts off the important bits you've droned on about and is an exact copy of the cropped version on the Jeremy Blakeslee website.
You claim to have photos of the plant in use, but you have yet to upload a single one. If that doesn't strike anyone as odd, then I am at a loss for words. The359 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think this nails something down. Image:El Caracol observatory.jpg was uploaded by User talk:Jbdesign2, with text claiming that the photograph was taken by that user, making that user Jeremy Blakeslee. Unless you're using sockpuppet accounts, you are not the person who took these photographs. The359 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have a feeling we may be involved with sock-puppetry here. Look at User talk:Jbdesign2's contributions. There aren't many, but the attitude's the same, and they were towards the same pages. I wouldn't be surprised if they're the same person, but we'd have to match the IP addresses of both users to be certain. I think only administrators can do it though. NcSchu(Talk) 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
More evidence: look at the history of Image:Bethlehemsteel01.jpg. The same photo, uploaded by both users, the last time by Jbdesign2 with credit to "Jeremy Blakeslee", the first time by UrbanArcheology. Also, the Meat Market website has a photo by this "Blakeslee", Blakeslee's website have some of the same "clients" and I found a website where he is described as a "freelance designer". We should bring in an admin to this situation. NcSchu(Talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

wow what your detective work has discovered is that I have an assistant who has helps me scan, do research, and upload files sometimes. we are, in fact, two different people. the photo you found in the magazine once again proves your ineptness with regards to photography, that is obviously a different photo, not a cropped version or high resolution version. which images i upload is up to me. all of this time you could have been doing research and making a contribution but you choose to play games. you guys are hilarious i hope your having a good time. ha ha Urbanarcheology (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So it's not sock puppetry then it's just meat puppetry. Well in fact, since the article has been protected, none of us could have been "making a contribution". Perhaps you'd like to stop playing games and actually act seriously so we can resolve this issue, since you are primarily the reason that it's actually an issue in the first place. NcSchu(Talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
So Jbdesign2 is an assistant. That's funny, why did they upload a photo claiming they took it? And why are they also attacking people in the same manner as you?
I don't need to know squat about photography to know that if you have a photo showing actual equipment, that it'd be more encyclopedic and helpful to the article than a photo that merely shows scale with equipment either not visible or hidden away in the darkness.
It is quite odd that you make the note about contributions. You yourself claimed to have photos of the plant in use, but you still have not uploaded any. Why not? All of your contributions to Wikipedia have consisted of nothing more than replacing good color photos on Bethlehem Steel, Chichen Itza, and Uxmal with your black and white art, spamming your website, then getting into a revert war whenever anyone removes them with good reasoning.
I'd still also like to see the Smithsonian Catalog number, so it can be added to the photo information for completeness sake. The359 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh my favorite expert still angy eh? If my assistant uploads an architectural photograph with my credit hes not claiming he took it, the photo of the high house shows important equipment, scale, and architecture, and I told you I would upload those photos as soon as you starting writing content that is suitable enough for the power of those images. No one has even begun to scratch the surface with that article and you certainly have not been of any help. I replaced some low quality digital images on chichen itza and uxmal with high quality architectural photographs, they were reverted, and I did not start an edit war but im sure that would make you very happy. Just because an architectural photo is black and white does not mean its some piece of fine art that does not provide encyclopedic information, that once again, is your very limited view surfacing. I dont have to prove anything to you, and will continue to contribute this article when this is resolved. If you want to make a difference then stop complaining and do some research while the page is locked so you can make a real contribution in the future. What was it you said your connection is to The Steel? 35 years of what exactly because it has obviously made you very bitter. If you dont have any expertise in this area or have any resources available to you which you have already admitted, then go edit something you know something about and stop trying to enlighten me with your undying wisdom of art. what we are dealing with here is a simple example of prickly people vs gooey people. Prickly people are advocates of intellectual porcupinism, they want precise sta-tis-tics they have a certain clipped attitude in their voices, you know them very well in academic circles...always edgy and and they accuse other people of being disgustingly vague and miasmic and mystical. but the vague miasmic and mystical people accuse the prickly people of being mere skeletons with no flesh on their bones, and they say to them, you just rattle, you not a human being you know the words but you dont know the music. if your the prickly type you hope that the ultimate constituent of matter is particles, if your the gooey type you hope its waves. prickly, classicist, gooey, romanticist. and so it goes, but we know that this universe is comprised of both and you cannot have one without the other. Just like the fact that there is a place for both color and black and white photos in this article. I have only made great efforts to give the images i produce back to people who can benefit from them, what you have done we are not sure. what is the difference between deaf ears and blind eyes anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanarcheology (talkcontribs) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What an intriguing story. Regarding the "High House" picture: the fact that you had to do so much explaining for such a picture proves that it shouldn't be included. I came to this article as a outsider, and still come here like that. When I look at that image I see nothing that tells me about the company, nothing whatsoever. Chances are, most other viewers that come to this page won't have a clue either. Captions should be almost redundant, not overly explanatory. And even after your explanation it's still not clear by the picture what it does. The irony of your lecture is that because you have an "art background" you clearly don't understand what type of images should be included. Your efforts have been only to turn this page into a art gallery, which is far from what it's supposed to be. NcSchu(Talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
First, this is not a negotiation. No text needs to be added for you to upload pictures, especially to Wikimedia Commons. Especially since, if you had pictures of th eplant in use, they could easily replace the pictures and other picturse we already have in the article. Second, if your assistant uploaded a photo, they still wouldn't say "I took this photo". They'd say Jeremy Blakeslee. Which they didn't.
The picture of High House lacks the bottom of the picture, where the key equipment is. As I already stated, the picture on your magazine shows a clear shot of the oil pits on the floor, while the picture you uploaded has them cropped out. Your edits to Chichen Itza and Uxmal were also not high quality architectual photos. If you're going to claim a black and white, fuzzy 600x400 pixel photo is better quality than a color, clear, 2300x1700 photo of the exact same structure, then your skills as a photographer are really suspect. Your photo doesn't even have the structure filling half of the frame! No, what you were actually trying to do was replace everybody else's stuff with your stuff, make it 300px so it stood out from everyone else's pictures, and then spam the hell out of your website.
There is nothing wrong with black and white in herently. However, your photos have such high contrast, lack of detail, and are so dark that there is no contest as to how unhelpful they are.
It is funny you discuss limited views. You yourself admit to not being a writer, and your previous statesments have shown a lack of understanding of what exactly is encyclopedic. Yet in your limited view you want to tell us what kind of pictures are encyclopedic? Also funny that you mention that your contributions to this article have been "great efforts to give the images i produce back to people who can benefit from them". Yet you wont upload pictures you claim to have that weren't produced by you! And in fact, removed pictures produced by others! This article is for giving people information. You haven't given them any information except for droning on about "unique architectural design" that was only used on one of Bethlehem Steel's multiple plants!
I am making contributions. I'm removing selfish spam, cleaning up the general appearance of the article, and cleaning up the text and subsections as well. You're not in charge of the article, and you're not in charge of relegating work orders.
We are not here to give pictures back to the people. We are an Encyclopedia, not an art gallery. The359 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ha ha ha im really getting a kick out of all of this you guys are so angry and would love to make me took bad, fantastic! is it working out how you planned? boy i hope so. ha ha ha!. my background is in graphic design and photography not art, which is more than i can say for the likes of you, and I have uploaded historic photos where appropriate, you must have been busy "cleaning up" the article (ha ha ha) and didnt notice what was right in front of you...exactly the kind of person we need helping the article out... while your dying to find things im doing wrong im actually down there photographing our history being demolished. if you cant contribute, dont bitch.Urbanarcheology (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people ... richi (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Dispute over the selection and use of photographs as well as external links to photographs in regards to the former company Bethlehem Steel. The359 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I requested, and succeeded in getting, page protection for two weeks until we can fix this mess. NcSchu(Talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would-be RFC commentator: Can someone explain what this dispute is about? The edit war that got this page protected seems to have been about a section of the article—not the pictures. I'm not sure what the problem with the pictures is. If you want to add more non-decay pictures, why don't we? Cool Hand Luke 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally, the debate was over external links to photo journal websites which simply photographed the destruction of the original Bethlehem Steel plant (the company actually owned many plants). The links had photos of the abandoned plant, but no actual historical or written information, so it was my opinion that they were unencyclopedic and removed. User:Urbanarcheology and his "assistant" User:Jbdesign2 reverted these edits, citing that Wikipedia policy was not necessary, and that our opinions did not merit the removal of links which they believed were informative about the history of the company.
Second, the pictures uploaded by Urbanarcheology were originally all just photos of the one abandoned plant, displayed at an unusual size, and including spam links in the thumbnail description of every photo. This was done by removing color photographs which were already in the article. That was reverted, but Urbanarcheology continued to revert it back. The images are simply black and white images of an abandoned plant. Myself and others suggested that pictures of other plants owned by the company, as well as photos of the plants in actual use, were better and more informative for the article. I found some on Flickr's Creative Commons, added them, only to be reverted once again by Urbanarcheology for his own pictures, again citing that our changes were merely our opinions and did not make us correct.
Urbanarcheology claims to have freely licensed pictures of the plants in use, but refuses to upload them, claiming that we need more text first. If he uploaded them now, he'd have to remove the pictures he himself took.
One picture in particular, the so called High House, has been constantly re-added by Urbanarcheology even though the encyclopedic merit and even readability of the picture have been called into question.
As for the section removal, there was a section discussing the decline and bankruptcy of the company. User:NcSchu removed it citing that it was unsourced. The section mostly discussed an author's comparison of the collapse of Bethlehem Steel and the rise of another company, without actually giving any details into why Bethlehem Steel failed. NcSchu could better explain the removal of this section. Again, Urbanarcheology reverted that removal.
I realize this is complicated and a long string of things, and possible needs more input than just RfC. The359 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that section was called "Management failings", here's the original text: "James C. Collins, in the book Good to Great, compares the long term decline of Bethlehem with the meteoric rise of Nucor. Based upon the data gathered by the research team, Collins concludes that cheap imports were not the only reason for Bethlehem's decline. The failure of management to innovate, embrace technology and improve labor relations contributed to the company's demise.
Ironically, the subject of cheap imports has continued to be an issue for American steel producers. Recently, the Chairman and CEO of Nucor has testified to the US Senate concerning the problems caused by cheap imports."
I removed this section because only a small part seemed to be talking about the company. Instead I included this information in an appropriate section summarizing what the section was trying to say without all the necessary fluff and advertising: "Inexpensive steel imports from other countries and the failure of management to innovate, embrace technology and improve labor conditions helped contribute to the Bethlehem's demise." Unfortunately, this edit was reverted for no said reasoning. NcSchu(Talk) 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Summary of a disinterested observer (me): User:Urbanarcheology is spamming, uncivil, and possibly sockpuppetting ... richi (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in light of this explanation, and after confirming much of what you say, I'll offer my independent opinion: I agree with the apparent consensus that this was an unnecessary link per WP:EL and that we don't need spammy captions like this. I also agree that many versions of the article place far too much emphasis on decay for an encyclopedia article. That said, the pictures do have some aesthetic merit. My suggestion is to upload all of the freely-licensed photos to Wikipedia commons, adding them to this commons category. That way, we will have a gallery of images without having to unbalance the article. I would trim perhaps one of the Bethlehem, PA pictures from the article because they're all of the same closed plant. As we get more pictures, we shouldn't need more than one of this closed location. All of these pictures should all be available in the commons gallery, though. Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even think of using the commons. NcSchu(Talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming at this again.[edit]

Now that there has been some outside input regarding this article, as well as the removal of the article protection, I think it is safe to start discussion once again over the state of the article. Recently, even more photos have been added, and I think that there is simply too much here, and some consensus is really needed about what photos should be used and what should be put on Commons, how pictures should be oriented and how big they should be, and how some text should be rearranged or rewritten. All suggestions welcomed. The359 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, only one picture of the Bethlehem location is needed, preferably the image that gives the greatest impression of the factory while it was open and in the best quality. Also, images that are more artistic rather than informative should be moved/removed to the commons. NcSchu(Talk) 15:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 359 I enjoy discussion, and I am glad you welcome my suggestions I will have a few as time goes on. There is simply too much here, and I look forward to a consensus on what photos should be used and what should be put on commons. Nick, stating that only one picture of the bethlehem site is needed is POV considering that this is the flagship facility and its over 5 miles long, and so is saying that images that are more artistic rather than informative should be removed. If your are confused about what is artistic and what is informative architectural photography i recommend: Julius Shulman: Architecture and Its Photography. As this discussion moves forward I would like to point out that simply because a photo is not in color does not make it any less informative, informational or encyclopedic. All of the outside input has acknowledged the fact that there is room for both historic and contemporary photographic images in this article and as the article becomes longer as people actually make literal contributions we will be able to find a good balance of both. Urbanarcheology (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I say one is because there are a lot of photographs of different facilities. It's difficult to remove ones that aren't already represented on the page but it's easier to remove ones that have multiple representations already. NcSchu(Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
First off, NcSchu's statement being "point of view" may be true, but your statements are also "point of view", so you really need to get off this "opinion" kick.
Second, although I do not agree with NcSchu's concept of only having one picture of the Bethlehem facility, it has merit. Being a flagship facility may be true, but this article is not about just that facility. For that matter, "5 miles long" isn't much to shake a stick at. As already stated, the Burns Harbor construction project was the largest in the United States at the time. It's certainly been one of their most important facilities.
Third, no one here is confused about what is art and which is informative. Julius Shulman's opinion has no merit here unless that person is actually involved in the discussion.
Photos in color may be informative, if done properly. If they suffer from having too much contrast, a lot of information is lost and it serves less purpose than it would if the photo were much clearer.
No one has denied that contemporary photos should be in the article, but I do not believe that artistic photos inherently count as the counterporary photos necessary.
Now, as for the photos themselves:
  • This image provides a clear, full picture of the Bethlehem facility, in color, and with a sense of scale. This image is similar, although slightly smaller in regards to the Bethlehem plant, but suffers from having a watermark in the corner.
  • This image should stay as it is the only picture to show a clear cut image of the downfall of the company. Clearly fits in the Decline heading.
  • This image for its age and historical perspective. Clearly fits into the Founding heading.
  • This image and this image should go somewhere as they are the only available pictures of facilities outside of Bethlehem, even though they may not be the best shots.
  • This image provides a clear image of a Bethlehem subsidiary, Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., in use, and provides a link to Bethlehem's military involvement.
  • This image might be best for showing Bethlehem's work, since it actually lists Bethlehem Steel on the plaque. There are quite a few pictures of the bridge here which I feel would be better suited to the article, especially in showing close-ups of the steel itself.
This makes roughly 7 images on the article. We may even have to cut back from that.
All pictures of course should be transfered to Wikimedia Commons, under the Bethlehem Steel category, unless they are Fair Use. Images which may not be as clear in describing elements of the text in this article, or provide alternative views of some structures, can still have merit even without having the room to be on the article. The359 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Always nice to hear your opinion
  • This image is an unclear, digital, out of focus photo that does nothing for the article, im embarrassed you would even consider it.
  • This image is fine but it belongs in a section describing Burns Harbor and right now is just floating around unrelated to the article text. What we really need is more content on these individual plants, are the other plants even mentioned at this point? Any images that do not have any related text should be moved to the commons gallery until more text is available to accommodate them.
  • This image is also of very low quality, hardly legible and would reduce clarity. If you want to key in the information on the plaque that would have move value than the image itself, the current image of the GG bridge is much better.
  • This image is a good representation of plant even though it was taken shortly after the closing and it clearly illustrates a large portion of the flag ship facility before large portions (the entire weldment facility) were removed.Urbanarcheology (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of Image:Bethlehemsteel.jpg, though I think the other pictures of Burns Harbor and the other factories don't necessarily belong in a section about those individual plants (because with the number of facilities they could get out of hand), but just in a general section about the plants, which doesn't actually exist yet. Also agree on the plaque, I'm having trouble reading it. NcSchu(Talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an image is digital should have no bearing on whether or not it is worthy, especially after your arguement that pictures in black and white should be given the same treatment.
The plaque was suggested merely because although it is not clear, it does give a connection to the company that someone could not establish elsewhere. Remember, these pictures are thumbnails, everything does not have to be immediataly legible in the thumbnail.
Really, to help cut down the number of pictures, any picture of the Golden Gate Bridge or any other project with Bethlehem contributed to can be done without.
Sparrows Point and Burns Harbor were the two largest production facilities the company had, they belong in the article. Bethlehem may be their original facility, but it was not their flagship plant for many years after the completion of Burns Harbor. We already have 1 picture from the 1800s of the Bethlehem plant, 1 picture of the modern plant, and 1 picture of the Bethlehem plant being taken down. In order to have less emphasis on just one plant, other pictures are necessary.
3 Bethlehem pictures (1 historic, 1 downfall), Burns Harbor, Sparrows Point, and Shipbuilding makes 6 pictures. More than enough for an article this small, and also gives room to spread things out so that pictures are not bumping against one another.
I'd also suggest limiting pictures to 200px or less, and placing pictures on the right so as not to violate the Method of Style. The359 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if I recall, the thumbnails are supposed to be fairly clear in what they show. I can't even read the plaque when it's enlarged let alone in thumbnail. NcSchu(Talk) 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you can try to argue my point against me if you wish, but digital files dont contain nearly as much information as film images in black and white or color (flim images have the same resolution despite their color properties). The fact that an image is digital AND of very low quality, AND blurry (!) has significant bearing on whether or not it is worthy, especially since the image you were declaring worthy is anything but, further calling into question your photo editing ability. I agree with nick, thumbnails are supposed to be clear as thumbnails as well, and that GG bridge plaque is illegible. We should have a section dedicated to the other plants but not necessarily one section for each. the fact that other plants were larger doesnt have any bearing on the company, which started in bethlehem, those plants are an extension of the company and are important, but for right now, we dont have any other information in the article about other plants, so lets not flood the article with more imagery of the other plants that no one has chosen to do research or write about yet. as they come, there will be more room for more imagery. Urbanarcheology (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Though any of that superiority is lost when converting the film images to digital, is it not? Color photographs are preferred, though the key word is preferred - obviously it would be very difficult to find color photographs of the plant taken during the company's golden years. No, we don't need a section on each plant, that would just get out of hand. I was thinking more along the lines of the largest few plants in addition to a general history about them. NcSchu(Talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

the superiority is not lost at all, in fact, with todays scanning technology, its even better than traditional darkroom techniques. negatives have density so you can actually scan them multiple times and composite the information, unlike a digital file. Urbanarcheology (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All of this is moot on a 200 pixel thumbnail. The original or scanning or method of taking a photograph is mostly lost when you have it shrunk to that size. You won't get any noticable benefit. The file I notminated may be bluury, but that is partially fixed by using a small resolution.
And the fact that plants are larger has a huge bearing on the company. Why else did they shut down the Bethlehem plant long before the company closed? Bethlehem was no longer their flagship facility. As I said, my suggestion already features 3 pictures of it, there's no need for more. The359 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your insight. please dont add any blurry low quality images or try to "fix" them by throwing away even more information at a smaller resolution. you can notice a benefit between film and digital images even at 200 pixels, besides this isnt about thumbnails, its about imagery and more importantly content which you have created zero. if you know so much about the other plants, perhaps you should add it? that would be a greater contribution than your most recent suggestions.Jbdesign2 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Be civil, you've been warned already. NcSchu(Talk) 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

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)

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)
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)

You are really good at complaining and slapping tags on things! Perhaps you should focus on editing the content? If you are able to improve this information please do so but whining and knee jerk reactions dont benefit anyone. Urbanarcheology (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

what happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


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)

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)

Overlong and embarrassing[edit]

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. (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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 edit this page 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)

"Last remaining blast furnace"[edit]

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. (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"all theory and no action"[edit]

It astounds me how many people have opinions on this article who have yet to contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"supposed contributors who are hurting this article"[edit]

I've recently uploaded historical photos that greatly benefit this article. The moment that anyone like this 359 guy start causing problems and picking fights for no reason with dogmatic knee jerk personal reactions, I'm pulling the images in protest, selfish I know but something has to be done with this clown'. He has yet to contribute anything positive to this page and its sad to see that. As long as he is an editor on this article it is next to impossible for it to advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter4368 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. Blakeslee again, nice to see your felt the need to bring this up again after 4 years. I see you've changed your name. Or not. I was really quite curious as to why some apparent new editor would dig this up, and then preach about dogmatic knee jerk personal reactions while attempting to claim he will hold his precious photos ransom unless he gets his way! I guess this is all back because you're feeling a bit self-promoting again? It's such a shame to see that the author of the MIT piece was not given proper credit here on Wikipedia, but the photographer was!
So, I'll break the first element of your statement down for you in a simple manner: The pictures you uploaded are under a claim of public domain because they were created by the federal government, although I find this rationale to be a bit dubious without any sort of backing information. Certainly something for the Commons administrators to question. But back to my point, as the photos are apparently in public domain, you cannot simply delete them on a whim. As the photos are public domain and were not taken by you, you have no control over them after you have uploaded them to Commons. And certainly attempting to remove them from this article under a claim of protest will be quickly reverted because it is blatant vandalism, no matter how you want to try and spin it. And if you want to try and head down that path, there wont even be a discussion anymore, this will simply be pointed out to the administrator's noticeboard, and then they can tell you the exact same thing.
Further, a little look through the External links guidelines seems to indicate that photo essays don't really qualify under the criteria. In fact, with several of the links in the current external links section broken, and the rest either being photos of ruins or articles on companies and buildings using the former Bethlehem site but not related to Bethlehem Steel, I'd say all but the archive to the official website of Bethlehem Steel should be eliminated as they add very little to the encyclopedic understanding of Bethlehem Steel as a company. We now have more than enough photos on Wikimedia Commons that links to photo collections are wholly redundant. People can already figure out from the article that the one particular site is in ruins, and see the ruins, a hundred more photos of it will not really add to their understanding of the company and its demise.
Now see, this is contributing. Making an article as a whole,external links and all, more about the topic and less about your self-promotion. The359 (Talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

as you wish, it seems the uploader of those images made a mistake. they were not in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter4368 (talkcontribs) 06:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Then they should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Simply removing the links in this article does not make the images disappear: 1, 2, 3. They still exist there under a claim of public domain, meaning anyone else can add them to this Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia without knowing that you uploaded the images under an incorrect copyright claim. The359 (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
And no, this is not a "wish", this is simple basic copyright law and Wikimedia and Wikipedia policies. Since you uploaded the pictures, the burden is on you to make sure you attribute the works properly. More images to add to our collection on Wikimedia Commons is nice, but only if they are legitimately ones we can use. The359 (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

i like your little 359 diagonal design, it makes you look bored. enjoy your life rotting away in pennsylvania; its all you'll ever have. I have hundres of historical images i could attribute properly, unfortunately, wikipedia is run by volunteers like you, depriving the world of information. we do not forgive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter4368 (talkcontribs) 07:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So, let me see if I have this straight. You upload images to add to the article. You then say you will remove the images if you do not get your way, in other words holding the images ransom. You're then told that legally the images cannot be used anyway, and you then remove them from the article (but still not yet from Wikimedia Commons! The "Nominate for Deletion" tab is on the left).
You then boast that you have plenty of images that you can properly upload to Wikimedia Commons, but wont do it.
So in summary I'm telling you what Wikipedia cannot legally host because it is against the law, while you're telling me what you wont add files because you feel vindictive and self-admittingly selfish. You might want to rethink who exactly is depriving who of knowledge.
Yes, Wikipedia is full of volunteers. You volunteer to upload files, we volunteer to make sure the files you upload are legal. Not exactly our fault you did it wrong. The359 (Talk) 07:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

let me guess. you live alone in pennsylvania. you have no girlfriend so you bought a labradoodle. you ended up here with your english degree acting like you're employed by wikipedia. I guess i'm just not smart enough to properly credit those images and make them public domain. you get off on citing rules and never actually contributing any content to this article. your talk page is full of people who can't stand you, and watching you waste your time arguing with me makes me very, very happy. while you are at home watching star trek with your dog or out taking amateur photos of cars, I am researching, hunting down, and photographing professionally historic industrial architecture and machinery that is disappearing at an alarming rate. if you would like to keep removing an academic link to a reputable publication with information about bethlehem steel that could be sited in this article by someone like YOU or hopefully smarter, than the only one depriving people of information is you. I have hundreds of historic photos of bethlehem steel in operation that i could site properly, but as long as you continue to edit this article i am withholding them, that is correct, in protest of your editing tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a reputable publication is moot in this matter. The content is the point. And the content does not meet WP:EL criteria because it does not add anything to what already exists in this article. External links are also not for citations. If you wish to add a citation, then add a citation. However, please keep in mind that citations require you to cite the author, not the photographer, which you seem to keep forgetting to do when linking to the article.
Wikipedia is not a link farm to any and every single web page that exists which mentions or shows Bethlehem Steel. We have no requirement to provide every piece of available information. We do not even want our articles to contain every single iota of information because we are an encyclopedia, we have to be concise and even with the weight of issues raised. So your (ironic) "you're denying people information" rant is not going to sway anyone. The359 (Talk) 18:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, Flickr!. How nice of you to bring something to my attention once more!
Wait a second, what's this...your files are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND? Non-commercial, eh? That's not allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Since you cannot have your photos be both CC-BY-2.5 and CC-BY-NC-ND, it looks like we'll have to nominate all the photos you have on Commons for deletion because you now claim they are only for non-commercial use. Wikipedia allows photos to be reused, even for commercial use. It seems you've had this problem multiple times of uploaded photos under various licenses simply to get them on Wikipedia. That is a sure way to get them deleted.
Anyway, as for your continued spamming of a link to your photos, per WP:ELNO, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Pretty clear and simple. Nothing unique there that could not already be mentioned in the article through prose or our existing collection of photos on Commons. Hence, it fails WP:EL criteria. The359 (Talk) 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Key products list missing?[edit]

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)