Jump to content

Talk:Engineer boot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Engineer boot. 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:

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) 04:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Engineer boot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never seen the word "shaft" used for the vertical part of a boot, and a quick look at our boot article doesn't find the word. Is this standard terminology? You use "stovepipe legs" later in the article; I'd have thought "legs" would be more natural for most readers. If you want to keep "shaft", since I see the term is used again later, I'd explain it on first use.
  • an ankle strap style that revolved around metal rings: what does "revolved" mean here?
    • Revised as "Quickly adopted by the United States Cavalry, they featured an ankle strap that attached to metal rings, a style which may have served as inspiration for the design of the engineer boot."
  • and fashioned over their "English Riding Boot" lasts: given that "last" is a technical term here, I'd at least link it, and I'd suggest paraphrasing this to be a little easier for someone unfamiliar with the terminology to follow.
    • Ah, that was holdover text from an unreliable source I long removed. I've revised it to reflect current sourcing.
  • Why did "minimal stitching" make the boots ideal for firemen?
    • The source does not specify.
  • On the overall basis, engineer boots were subverted in the shoe market: I don't know what "on the overall basis" means here, and "subverted" seems an odd word choice.
    • Revised as "Engineer boots were overtaken in the shoe market during World War II by the production of lace-up combat boot".
  • The first item in "In popular culture" is already covered in the article. If the other two points are mentioned in sources about the boot, which seems likely for The Young Savages but not the Billy Joel reference, judging by the sources, I'd integrate the information in the article and eliminate the section.
    • Done, integrated TYS reference into the body article.
  • The last two sources in the "References" section are out of order.
    • Fixed.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've responded to your comments, thank you for the review. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look good, so promoting, though you may want to cut the clarification per my note above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[Cowhide|bull hide]] and use of {{sfn}}

[edit]
  • Indy beetle Do you actually have this 2015 source, and does it actually use the term "bull hide" (added 5 June 2017)? Bulls were/are rare compared to cows, high-valued, coveted and cosseted, and relatively few hides would be available from that source. By the same rationale, they would be old at death from normal circumstances (remembering that I am an old shoemaker, as was my father before me, and we do not use the word 'shafts' in UK). Old and heavy leathers would be used for what was traditionally known as bottom stock - that is insoles, soles and heels.
    • Hello Rocknrollmancer, long time no see. Yes, the source does use the term "bull hide", why don't you actually take the time and read it for your self [26]. No I do not have it in print, I accessed it online. If you have any serious doubts about what it says, perhaps you could find an alternative source, or write your own book. As for not using the term "shafts" in the UK, well, alright then, the article is written in American English where shaft seems to be a pretty standard term, read the GA review.
  • Use of sfn formatting has not (does not? I don't like/don't use) included access dates in most reference works; the citations are therefore incomplete.
  • The Boyer ref (as referred to above) was first added 12 July 2016 by the same editor using a {{cite book}} template, similarly without any access date
    • I'm not sure what the problem is with adding a reference to book using the cite book template. And I think precedent supports adding book references, even if found online, without access dates. Never has my lack of access dates on Google book finds caused me grief at FAC or Military A class review.
  • I'm also not impressed with the use of a scant Google books target as part of the citation - not much use at all.
  • Any comments, Mike Christie? That's just from a glance, not actually read it through.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indy beetle has addressed the first point above. The other points relate to source formatting, which isn't addressed by the GA criteria; that's why I didn't comment on those issues here. Access dates are not needed for books, in any case; their value is primarily for websites, and even then they have little value when they link to sources that can be found offline. See this discussion, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite ignoring Indy beetle for many months, I see the same type of scathing remarks are being extended towards me, such as "write your own book" and "perhaps one which "impresses" you". This can be filed away with the previous accusations of article WP:OWNership, "Your patronizing attitude" and "Is that your "expert" assumption?". The only reason that I have this article on Watchlist is because Indy beetle introduced fictitious - obviously unsupported - content that UK motorcyclists wore American engineer boots in the 1950s and 1960s (as seen in the edit-link shown above).

Regarding bull hide I've now seen the page scan; this seems to be a mis-nomer from the author. The dab page indicates a click-through to the Americanism Steer, although WP should not be considered reliable, I surmise the author meant gelded young male raised for beef production a few years old, not bull per se, meaning stud-bull.

Regarding access dates, much WP content, typically from the 2006-2008 period was OR, with determined recent editors, some not well-meaning and more interested in hostility towards others and 'showing chops' (I hope you understand this Americanism) than actually obtaining historically-accurate published sources, using keyword-searches to find allegedly-reliable sources that probably post-dated the WP content - ie, potentially WP:CIRCULAR.

The rise of the interweb has rendered WP policies out-of-date; anyone can establish a WP:SPS without any historic publication history, plagiarise content from other web-sources, slap a copyright notice on the footer, and it can and will be cited after keyword searches.

It is therefore important to know when sources were added, and to what pre-existing text; I accept I have to waste time trawling-through histories where I suspect things are not-quite right, producing a long-list, being one reason why I don't write as much prose in recent years.

Editors using keyword searches to produce made-for-entertainment videos using {{cite AV media}} in a bogus-historic way, only sanctioned by WP:VNT is another example; in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldening, another unconnected example is where, after much warring between two Americans, American folk-hero Jay Leno's 2015 programme was used in a similar false-historic way, indicating an opinion-only of a primary-source, CoI, senior Kawasaki employee who admitted being only 12 years old at the time of the (disputed) alleged events (1971>).

A different example can be seen at Talk:Café racer#failed verification BBC ‘The Listener’, 25 March 1971 - the result of hours of work involving other non-connected WP editors. That's just one dubious citation dealt with.

Apologies to Mike Christie for the lengthy rant - the need to explain everything is why I do not interact with Indy beetle. Having established the background, I will now start to edit the article having read through it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah not to worry I do my best to avoid Rocknrollmancer on Wiki, really the only editor I intentionally keep my distance from. This goes back to mid 2016 at the Rocker (subculture) article. I'll let other editors make their own judgement of Talk:Rocker (subculture).
  • What am I supposed to make of comments that say Do you actually have this 2015 source, and does it actually use the term "bull hide". What, did I lie or something? Yes, admittedly I misrepresented source material concerning rockers & engineer boots about 9 months ago (not maliciously, I'll add, mostly from an over assumption), but are you really going to insinuate that I didn't properly use the source without trying to read it yourself?
  • I'm also not impressed with the use of a scant Google books target as part of the citation - not much use at all Oh, my "scant Google books target" source did not "impress" you. Well, its published by a third party publishing company (even if its not Harvard or Cambridge University Press), we have no reason to up front question its reliability (any editor's personal experience can only count for so much in that regard). If you actually have a reliable source of your own to back up your assertions then please do introduce it to the article, as this is a topic with few available secondary sources already.
  • in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldening Well once I again I'll let other people judge my 2016 edits in that case, where you—in a dearth of WP:GOOD FAITH—accused me of trying to get myself "noticed" with the emboldened name. At any rate, could you please point to where in this article I messed up, or would you prefer to point to my past edits on other pages you disagree with?
Connecting the access dates to wider problems on the internet I do not really understand...Mike has pointed to a discussion about why we don't use access dates for things other than web sources—a precedent I did adhere to. The rest of what you have to say there seems more like a wider contention with how Wikipedia works.
If you are really so bothered by this article or are entirely lacking in faith of my abilities as an editor, go ahead, ask me more questions, or nominate it for GA review. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging as {{clarification}} and {{dubious}}

[edit]

{{clarification}} - "a pound-mass each" is not the normal WP way of indicating weight? A 'pound' - unqualified - is also a unit of currency. This should be formatted as {{convert|1|lb|abbr=on}}, giving 1 lb (0.45 kg)??

I said that to clarify that I was not talking about the currency, but yes I suppose the lb format works best.

{{dubious}} - this aspect of the description does not make sense; I have weighed my heaviest work-boots (short 7-inch lace-up, non-protective toecaps) caterpillar boots at 2lb (=900 grams) each. Others similar (Prospecta, two pairs in different leather types/finishes) being an economy version of Timberland are <2lb each (=800 grams). On this comparison, it's unlikely that double thickness, heavy bullhide boots (particularly the high-leg) would weigh as little as 1lb each.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I thought it a rather light estimate, but I have no other source that says otherwise. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

[edit]

Highnoteboy, there's a decent source for the material you're removing, so I've undone your edit. Do you have other sources that say it's false? Please don't re-remove sourced material once it's been restored; we should discuss here why it might need removal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Link goes to the Frye company website. They say they made their first harness boots in the 1960s based on the cavalry boot. You can't cite a source and then say your source is wrong. Highnoteboy (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where on the Frye website? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thefryecompany.com/pages/about-us
You have to enter their history portal then scroll down. Highnoteboy (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about the "cited source", what are you referring to? The cited source in the article which supported that information says quite clearly, "They may have been inspired by the popularity of the earlier Harness boot introduced by Frye (Marlborough, MA) around 1860". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THE HARNESS BOOT
The birth of The Harness. Nothing says “Frye” like the signature harness ring and studs on The Harness Boot. Inspired by cavalry soldiers in the Civil War, The Harness Boot is an American icon.
1960S VINTAGE ARCHIVE
That's the quote from the Frye page. Highnoteboy (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frye website says they made their first boots (not harness boots) in 1888. They made harness boots STARTING in the 1960s. Not 1860s Highnoteboy (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've read the portal. Yeah, I'll defer to the company on that one. I guess the og source got mixed up on the cavalry boots and who made them. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of taking up reenacting. I've been looking at actual Civil War sources, including period photos and museum displays of boots for hours each day for the last couple of weeks trying to figure out where I got the idea that Harness Boots came from Civil War cavalry. I haven't seen any. It appears as though Hollywood might have pulled a fast on on us. I'm not a wealthy person, and if I have to drop $400 on boots, they better be the right ones. Harness boots are easier to find at much lower prices, so I really REALLY wish Harness boots came from the Union Cavalry. They didn't. You couldn't wear spurs over the extra straps.
Check out this manufacturer of replica footwear:
https://www.fugawee.com/2018/05/18/facts-about-original-civil-war-shoes/
I haven't included a link from this page because it doesn't actually have to do with Engineer boots. Highnoteboy (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Engineer_boot&oldid=1207116183"