![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is probably irrelevant to a history page, but if someone wants to add these back, I have removed the reference to the journal article about externalities because the conclusion wasn't given. I've removed "50%" because it was vague and unsourced, and I've removed the reference to the PDF for coal being the primary source of electrical power because it didn't say that anywhere (it said that the majority of coal is used for electrical power, which is different) Kevinpet ( talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is expanded, this should be linked as "main article" from history section of coal mining article.
If it is not expanded, it should be merged with coal mining. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It might be interesting to add this graph, which should be free of copyright, but I don't know how to do it. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ0.html Can anyone add the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.159.117 ( talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not a good person to AfD things, but somone needs to merge this with coal mining and Afd this artocle. If it becomes necessary, == I would oppose the merging of this with coal mining. However this is a vast subject, and probably needs to be dealt with by providing regional overviews for each major coalfield in each country. Indeed some of these may need separate articles with this one providing an overview.
Even the present bibliography on Great Britain is severely incomplete, lacking scholarly works by J. U. Nef, John Hatcher, M. W. Flinn and others. Peterkingiron 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think someone has confused the reference section with a general "Further reading"-list. I mean, the darned thing is longer than the article. I've moved the list here to the talkpage. Please don't move it back without sorting out the actual references first. And do try to keep it a bit more compact.
Peter Isotalo 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-)
The article still needs a lot of expansion, After all there massive biblogrpahy shows there is a lot that can be written on the subject..
It might also be worht mentioning in passing things like
Davey lamp, Geordie lamp. School of the Mines, the discover of coke, role of coal in gas production etc (gas works were a major coal user in the UK until natural gas was found in the North Sea), Role of coilers in labour relations (like for example the General Strike in 1926) etc etc...
ShakespeareFan00 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of this sentence is unclear:
Does this mean "leading," as in "being ahead of," or "leading to..." or something else?
What countries are referred to?
Suggest clarify or delete. Richard Myers 08:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the cut of details is mostly reasonable. Someone had added:
The precise meaning of the clause "The victims were actually 956" is unclear, at least to me.
After the cut:
These are worst disasters in each locale, and the number of deaths is the best measurement. Widows and orphans are to be expected in any explosion, and the specific details ultimately ought to be left to an article on each specific incident.
I question the decision to remove "...boys and..." from "...boys and men..." in the American incident, but leave "...and boys..." in "...killed 436 men and boys..." in the British disaster. It is almost as if we're trying to clean up the image of the American coal mining industry, but reporting the British industry in all its ugliness.
The greatest problem is the uneven treatment. In fixing, i suggest that reporting boys dying in coal mine disasters shocks the modern sensibilities, and therefore (for historical accuracy) is a very important detail. Richard Myers 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The final section Social impact of coal's decline... is unreferenced, poorly written, and full of POV. Unless someone either cleans it up or gives me a reason to leave it in, I think that it should be deleted. Plazak 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The section has been written as a result of political problems within the UK, that have resulted from the decline of the industry, as well as other factors. Any offence caused to a qualified individual is neither wanted or looked for by the individual concerned. The section was written in anger as the result of said socio-political problems in Europe. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
This section contains a number of assertions that are incorrect. Some of these are marked with{{fact}} flags. Unless references supporting these appear, the section will be deleted. . . . LinguisticDemographer 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The statements made in the section are all factualy correct; & have been made in a noble manner, in order to light up the area that all the nazi trained academics are driving the world into, via the internet driven, masses revolution. Wikipedia is becoming nothing more than a masses written; Mien Kamp.
This statement of verifiable sources; is the very same way the criminals that run the UK; & Europe, get away with their crimes. The worlds peoples, have become so totalitarian, that you can not say a word against the masses, without being butchered in society. So in turn this lends to, a culture of silence; paid of police officials; & rampant un-controlled lawlessness. I do recall; you are from the "States"; & as such, you should feel blessed, in having a, up-standing, moral human-being, such as President, G W. Bush, for a leader. If you did not, you may well have found yourselves, in, "The European, Social Model"; that is; people are killing one another, like animals in the street; & at the same time the masses are moaning about "The Few Bad Apples of Society", they are lapping up, "The University City"; "Euro-Money", that directly, causes the lawlessness. Simple terms; all the old industries & academics, in the UK; post war; were pro "Nazi-Hegel", to the core; & have remained so. Now; we have the "Internet" revolution in Europe; & they are running riot. The young are seeing the "Nazi Cartels", of Europe & Africa; & are attracted to lawlessness. Be proud of a man; who is your leader, for doing the job that he is paid to do; "To serve & protect; you union of the peoples; of the United States, of America". There is very rarely; votes, as far as doing the right thing, when the masses are concerned. For as Bismarck; & his king lamented, with Bismarck sat on a wheel-barrow; "If they [Masses] are allowed to rule, by the mob; first they will kill you; & then, they will kill me". Then after that; a senseless mob will be looking for leaders; & what will they find; nothing but, "The University City", council of twelve; themselves holding all knowledge, in their knowledge banks; & they as the only people that can understand. The Greek-Egyptain; Euro-Death Cult; will have finally caused the Malthusian Catastrophe; all in the name of "Charles Galton, Darwin"; Eugenesist; & Nazi; & killer of his own, destroyer of worlds; "Alan M. Turing". As far as your sources are concerned; if people were willing to talk; & risk, being beaten to death, on the streets of the UK, "Civil War Zone"; then, there would not be a need for attacking the masses on Wikipedia; good & decent of society, would be caring for them, as a, communal case, suitable for aggresive pharmacutical intervention.
Hi please talk about money for my report that will get &1227890 if it wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.70.133 ( talk) 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
shouldent the the british labour partys part in coal mining history be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I put on the tag for the article not representing a worldwide view of the subject as some major coal producing regions, such as China are not discussed. Theseeker4 ( talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree Japan is not mentioned also and some of the text is not really relevant to the topic of the history of coal mining. As the topic is so big it would be useful to create separate pages for each country. Iain Stuart ( talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
First place to start would be adding sections to the "History" area. There are only two sections before I added the "Middle Ages" and changed "Pre-history" into "Antiquity". AllStarZ ( talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm attempting to change the groundwork of the article to a more world-wide format, but people keep changing it back.
If you want to help, create sub-articles about coal mining in those specific countries. Coal mining has a diverse history among many countries, but this article focuses too specifically on the importance of coal in the development of Western nations.
And you're not helping by adding more content relating to coal mining in the West.
Editing is a gradual process, and the article is a mess as it is. If you don't like the way I'm changing the article, please post the reasons for your disagreement on the talk page. Or better yet, do something.
AllStarZ ( talk) 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of coal mining. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bl.uk/reshellp/findhelpsubject/socsci/topbib/coal/coal.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I find the claim about the low cost of coal for electricity generation in a sentence in the first paragraph to be outdated. The sentence currently reads "Coal remains an important energy source because of its low cost and abundance compared to other fuels, particularly for electricity generation[1]"
The source cited is from 2004, and a lot has changed since then. According to the consultancy Lazard, the electricity from new coal-fired power plants is typically more expensive than that from combined-cycle gas plants, wind or solar on an unsubsidized basis [1]. And while the Lazard analysis shows that running existing coal plants is competitive with these sources, it also shows that it is more expensive than running nuclear plants; furthermore in the United States the cost of operating coal plants is typically higher than running combined cycle gas plants.
As such, I would like to propose that this be modified to remove the phrase "particularly for electricity generation", or alternatively to state that "while coal was an inexpensive source of electricity generation in the past, it has been eclipsed in cost by other sources of power."
Croselund20 ( talk) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
References
If there are no objects, I'm gonna go ahead and order the countries alphabetically. I don't see any significance to the current order. –DMartin 05:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
All ok 114.134.27.182 ( talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is probably irrelevant to a history page, but if someone wants to add these back, I have removed the reference to the journal article about externalities because the conclusion wasn't given. I've removed "50%" because it was vague and unsourced, and I've removed the reference to the PDF for coal being the primary source of electrical power because it didn't say that anywhere (it said that the majority of coal is used for electrical power, which is different) Kevinpet ( talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If this is expanded, this should be linked as "main article" from history section of coal mining article.
If it is not expanded, it should be merged with coal mining. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It might be interesting to add this graph, which should be free of copyright, but I don't know how to do it. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ0.html Can anyone add the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.159.117 ( talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not a good person to AfD things, but somone needs to merge this with coal mining and Afd this artocle. If it becomes necessary, == I would oppose the merging of this with coal mining. However this is a vast subject, and probably needs to be dealt with by providing regional overviews for each major coalfield in each country. Indeed some of these may need separate articles with this one providing an overview.
Even the present bibliography on Great Britain is severely incomplete, lacking scholarly works by J. U. Nef, John Hatcher, M. W. Flinn and others. Peterkingiron 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think someone has confused the reference section with a general "Further reading"-list. I mean, the darned thing is longer than the article. I've moved the list here to the talkpage. Please don't move it back without sorting out the actual references first. And do try to keep it a bit more compact.
Peter Isotalo 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :-)
The article still needs a lot of expansion, After all there massive biblogrpahy shows there is a lot that can be written on the subject..
It might also be worht mentioning in passing things like
Davey lamp, Geordie lamp. School of the Mines, the discover of coke, role of coal in gas production etc (gas works were a major coal user in the UK until natural gas was found in the North Sea), Role of coilers in labour relations (like for example the General Strike in 1926) etc etc...
ShakespeareFan00 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of this sentence is unclear:
Does this mean "leading," as in "being ahead of," or "leading to..." or something else?
What countries are referred to?
Suggest clarify or delete. Richard Myers 08:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the cut of details is mostly reasonable. Someone had added:
The precise meaning of the clause "The victims were actually 956" is unclear, at least to me.
After the cut:
These are worst disasters in each locale, and the number of deaths is the best measurement. Widows and orphans are to be expected in any explosion, and the specific details ultimately ought to be left to an article on each specific incident.
I question the decision to remove "...boys and..." from "...boys and men..." in the American incident, but leave "...and boys..." in "...killed 436 men and boys..." in the British disaster. It is almost as if we're trying to clean up the image of the American coal mining industry, but reporting the British industry in all its ugliness.
The greatest problem is the uneven treatment. In fixing, i suggest that reporting boys dying in coal mine disasters shocks the modern sensibilities, and therefore (for historical accuracy) is a very important detail. Richard Myers 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The final section Social impact of coal's decline... is unreferenced, poorly written, and full of POV. Unless someone either cleans it up or gives me a reason to leave it in, I think that it should be deleted. Plazak 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The section has been written as a result of political problems within the UK, that have resulted from the decline of the industry, as well as other factors. Any offence caused to a qualified individual is neither wanted or looked for by the individual concerned. The section was written in anger as the result of said socio-political problems in Europe. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
This section contains a number of assertions that are incorrect. Some of these are marked with{{fact}} flags. Unless references supporting these appear, the section will be deleted. . . . LinguisticDemographer 09:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The statements made in the section are all factualy correct; & have been made in a noble manner, in order to light up the area that all the nazi trained academics are driving the world into, via the internet driven, masses revolution. Wikipedia is becoming nothing more than a masses written; Mien Kamp.
This statement of verifiable sources; is the very same way the criminals that run the UK; & Europe, get away with their crimes. The worlds peoples, have become so totalitarian, that you can not say a word against the masses, without being butchered in society. So in turn this lends to, a culture of silence; paid of police officials; & rampant un-controlled lawlessness. I do recall; you are from the "States"; & as such, you should feel blessed, in having a, up-standing, moral human-being, such as President, G W. Bush, for a leader. If you did not, you may well have found yourselves, in, "The European, Social Model"; that is; people are killing one another, like animals in the street; & at the same time the masses are moaning about "The Few Bad Apples of Society", they are lapping up, "The University City"; "Euro-Money", that directly, causes the lawlessness. Simple terms; all the old industries & academics, in the UK; post war; were pro "Nazi-Hegel", to the core; & have remained so. Now; we have the "Internet" revolution in Europe; & they are running riot. The young are seeing the "Nazi Cartels", of Europe & Africa; & are attracted to lawlessness. Be proud of a man; who is your leader, for doing the job that he is paid to do; "To serve & protect; you union of the peoples; of the United States, of America". There is very rarely; votes, as far as doing the right thing, when the masses are concerned. For as Bismarck; & his king lamented, with Bismarck sat on a wheel-barrow; "If they [Masses] are allowed to rule, by the mob; first they will kill you; & then, they will kill me". Then after that; a senseless mob will be looking for leaders; & what will they find; nothing but, "The University City", council of twelve; themselves holding all knowledge, in their knowledge banks; & they as the only people that can understand. The Greek-Egyptain; Euro-Death Cult; will have finally caused the Malthusian Catastrophe; all in the name of "Charles Galton, Darwin"; Eugenesist; & Nazi; & killer of his own, destroyer of worlds; "Alan M. Turing". As far as your sources are concerned; if people were willing to talk; & risk, being beaten to death, on the streets of the UK, "Civil War Zone"; then, there would not be a need for attacking the masses on Wikipedia; good & decent of society, would be caring for them, as a, communal case, suitable for aggresive pharmacutical intervention.
Hi please talk about money for my report that will get &1227890 if it wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.70.133 ( talk) 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
shouldent the the british labour partys part in coal mining history be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 ( talk) 11:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I put on the tag for the article not representing a worldwide view of the subject as some major coal producing regions, such as China are not discussed. Theseeker4 ( talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree Japan is not mentioned also and some of the text is not really relevant to the topic of the history of coal mining. As the topic is so big it would be useful to create separate pages for each country. Iain Stuart ( talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
First place to start would be adding sections to the "History" area. There are only two sections before I added the "Middle Ages" and changed "Pre-history" into "Antiquity". AllStarZ ( talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm attempting to change the groundwork of the article to a more world-wide format, but people keep changing it back.
If you want to help, create sub-articles about coal mining in those specific countries. Coal mining has a diverse history among many countries, but this article focuses too specifically on the importance of coal in the development of Western nations.
And you're not helping by adding more content relating to coal mining in the West.
Editing is a gradual process, and the article is a mess as it is. If you don't like the way I'm changing the article, please post the reasons for your disagreement on the talk page. Or better yet, do something.
AllStarZ ( talk) 17:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of coal mining. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bl.uk/reshellp/findhelpsubject/socsci/topbib/coal/coal.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I find the claim about the low cost of coal for electricity generation in a sentence in the first paragraph to be outdated. The sentence currently reads "Coal remains an important energy source because of its low cost and abundance compared to other fuels, particularly for electricity generation[1]"
The source cited is from 2004, and a lot has changed since then. According to the consultancy Lazard, the electricity from new coal-fired power plants is typically more expensive than that from combined-cycle gas plants, wind or solar on an unsubsidized basis [1]. And while the Lazard analysis shows that running existing coal plants is competitive with these sources, it also shows that it is more expensive than running nuclear plants; furthermore in the United States the cost of operating coal plants is typically higher than running combined cycle gas plants.
As such, I would like to propose that this be modified to remove the phrase "particularly for electricity generation", or alternatively to state that "while coal was an inexpensive source of electricity generation in the past, it has been eclipsed in cost by other sources of power."
Croselund20 ( talk) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
References
If there are no objects, I'm gonna go ahead and order the countries alphabetically. I don't see any significance to the current order. –DMartin 05:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
All ok 114.134.27.182 ( talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)