Talk:Gun Quarter

Note: A copy of the edit history of the article prior to deletion of versions perpetuating copyvio can be found at Talk:Gun Quarter, Birmingham/Deleted history.

---

Copyright etc

I have restored this article to its last form after the copyright material was removed, it was edited by many people and was starting to take shape, many hours went into its creation and I do not understand why Andrew Mabbett went to such lengths just to delete the entire article? 195.92.67.65 18:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at the article in its earlier form. The problem is that part of it is copyvio from the Webley site and Birminghamuk.com, and the rest is unedited, uncited, chunks straight out of Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham (plain text here) - which, although it's out of copyright, goes against the guideline Don't include copies of primary sources.

Oh, lordy! Attribution looks iffy even for the bare-bones intro that remains. See [1] and [2]. The literary flavour of phrases such as "pushing in between buildings of an earlier time and function" suggests a book source. RayGirvan 16:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I know brums gun quarter inside out now :(, I have created an article from work I had part written and stashed away, this is all original and I am now working on the US section, my sources you will know from virtual brum, the project site on main brum page and Chambers gunmakersParker-Hale gunsmiths enjoy :\ Nick Boulevard 23:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not all original. The first two paragraphs are identical to texts about the Gun Quarter at these family history sites: [3] and [4]. RayGirvan 23:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andy, that was overkill. Deleting the specific text would have been sufficient - I commented, hoping Nick would edit it, being more familiar with the subject. RayGirvan 12:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was? I did two things - I reverted to a previous version, to remove an unencylopedic incoherent bbundle of unrelated (part) sentences, many of which had the appearance of being source material, and whcih havd already been removed previously. This left a two paragarph article, which was 100% copyvio. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I am going to try and keep calm here, I spent all yesterday afternoon writing that article and I absolutely swear on oath that it was all my own material, if anything sounds or looks familiar then I can assure you 100% that it came from my own head or that someone else has read the same research as myself and interpreted it in a similar fashion to myself, I have provided the links to where I got my facts from, If this is not restored then I am afraid that Andy Mabbetts behaviour is disgusting and totally out of order, my god and you wonder why I act the way I do sometimes, this is proof of his blatant vandalism and deletion of my own original work, not copyright violation or anything else, something needs to be done here to stop this, if Andy didn't like the way I worded it then he is welcome to edit it providing all the facts and relevant points are still in the article that I went to great lengths to research and put into a coherent peice of work for the sake of the article, I was trying to right a wrong of ever using any text from elswhere in the first place Nick Boulevard 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, I've just double checked what Ray claimed was copyright violation, the text at the top of the page which I agree is taken from here:

[5] and

[6]

is absolutely nothing to do with me, I purposely left that alone so as not to upset the person that wrote it who appears to be user 82.145.213.10, ironic that Andy Mabbett seems to have been the main person reverting blatant copyright material, hilarious. I will happily remove the copyright violation and add an original factual intro, I can base it on what was there or write my own take? As I say I am working on the U.S. section but until my work is restored I am not wasting any more time Nick Boulevard 17:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I agree: I left the article because it looked salvageable by a rewrite (and I didn't say anything about the source of the apparent copyvio). As you say, 82.145.213.10 sourced those two paragraphs - a family history enthusiast who signs as Mark Grace and has OK'd copyright as the originator on some of his posts. I've e-mailed him to see what the situation is. RayGirvan 20:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually quite liked the intro, it was well written IMO. I have now re-submitted my work from yesterday on the temp page in preperation for a live article, I have formatted the page in preperation for more work, if you can think of any alternative titles to the ones I have added then go for it. I have also restored another users work that I salvaged from the previous copyright violation Nick Boulevard 20:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright looks fine - I just heard from Mark Grace: "I have no issue with copyright. The text is modified from a letter I received some years ago. If you are concerned, just rewrite the text a little! RayGirvan 10:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, do you want to restore it exactly or re-write? Incidentally I have now added a bit of info to the American trade section which could be changed to "Foreign trade"?, I am working on the more prominent gun manufacturers v. soon. All my work today is sourced from the following:

http://www.firearmsmuseum.org.au/index.htm

http://www.welleranddufty.co.uk/lots.asp

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/PIG_POL/PISTOL.html

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/confederate_manufactures.htm

http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/pistols/armpr.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~frey2000/id2.html

http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14472

Regards Nick Boulevard 19:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Gun Quarter, Birmingham/Temp

I've tried to arrange this chronologically rather than by loose theme. Reference to "the government" in the context of the civil war is rather unfortunate - which government? The 17th-18th century stuff is useful as pre-history and context, but I'd like to remind people of the title of the article - it is not about weapons production in general, it's about the Gun Quarter. I can't quite see why the erection of a saw mill in Italy by a local gun maker is relevant to an article about Birmingham, so I've commented that out, and I've also removed the information about cannon going to the Dardanelles, BSA diversifying into motorbikes, and some of the other irrelevant details. The "setters up" include machines - what? It would be helpful if there was a source given for some of this (I have a list from Hopkins's The Rise of the Manufacturing Town which is similar). The "&c"s seem to point to a Victorian or earlier source. I've also chopped some of the 20th century section, which is not about the Gun Quarter (or indeed guns at all), and more relevant to the BSA article (where most of it is duplicated, quelle surprise!). --Brumburger 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page does look better in present form but you have deleted some relevant facts that I supplied proof of on the main article talk page, please restore them or I can if you like re: cannons (where else will this info suit best?), saw mill was set up by a gun firm from teh gun quarter and is a good example of how successful and affluent some of the companies were.

Your comments do not surprise me Brumburger, to be honest why don't you try and create an article instead of critisizing other peoples hard work, oh sorry I forgot, your not capable of that other than making snide remarks like ..."where most of it is duplicated, quelle surprise!)". The hilarious thing for me is that you can't actually delete any of my factual work that is related to the article because it is all sourced dear boy. Dil kee gaharaeon se, Chale Jao! :) Nick Boulevard 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going to convert that RfC into a request for arbitration if you don't cut this out. You have an opportunity now to move on and start behaving in an appropriate manner, don't blow it. If you think anything I have removed is relevant to an article about the Gun Quarter, justify it and put it back in. Unless you have evidence that those cannon were made in the GQ, they aren't relevant. Unless you have evidence that the saw mill provided materials to the GQ, it isn't relevant. If it's irrelevant to this article, it's not my responsibility to find somewhere else for it to go. "Creation" (actually, initiation) of an article is not important - you really have to let go of this idea that if you start an article it is somehow "yours". It stops being "yours" when you hit that "Save page" button. After that, it's everybody's, and everybody can shape it. --Brumburger 18:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok mate, the cannons can stay on the brum military page, the saw mills are relevant because it was a gun quarter firm that set up the mills, shows how far the gun quarter influence stretched across the world. :) Nick Boulevard 13:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The potential of the flintlock

By the end of the eighteenth century the potential of the flintlock pistol had been realized,

I don't really understand what this is trying to say - the potential to users? Manufacturers? The flintlock had become fully developed? Unless someone (Nick?) can say where this comes from and what it means, I suggest it should be removed. --Brumburger 08:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Andy Mabbett 10:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Undone and re-worded. This evidence was taken directly from a plaque in the gun quarter http://www.virtualbrum.co.uk/history/bull.htm as Andy Mabbett knows only too well don't you mate. :) Nick Boulevard 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Custer's guns etc

Guns at the Little Big Horn has some interesting background on this point, and provides pointers to source-rich topics such as Braendlin and William Tranter. RayGirvan 18:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

" General Custer is known to have owned a Galand and Sommerville .44 revolver, which was faster to load than existing American pistols." and the connection with the Birmingham gun quarter is what exactly? 31.52.251.211 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=22964

source cited, firt... I'm not sifting through this lot, there is a wealth of info here on all matters, will have a dig around. Nick Boulevard 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I've just deleted the page hisory to remove any lingering copyvios from the history (especially those in the first draft) since the text seems clear of copyright issues now--nixie 00:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of trades

Unless anyone wants to clean them up, I propose to delete the list of trades. As it stands, it's a meaningless, unencylopedic dumping of source material. Andy Mabbett 08:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a go at cleaning them up - it's an illustration of the way that in the late 18th and early 19th centuries a multitude of extremely specialised workshops would contribute to a finished product, as described in Economy of Birmingham. It needs dating, context, and reduction though. --Brumburger 11:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done, and moved into the 19th century section (since that's the period being described). --Brumburger 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Authorship

In his last edit summary, Nick Boulevard claims authorship of this article [7]. The copyright violations to which he refers were his. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard. Andy Mabbett 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should also be added that the version of the article restored by Petaholmes was actually a collaborative effort in the best Wikipedia tradition, mostly written by other contributors - as can be seen from this talk page. --Brumburger 10:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A copy of the edit history prior to deletion can be found at Gun Quarter, Birmingham/Deleted history.—Theo (Talk) 18:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming

Shouldn't this page be titled Birmingham Gun Quarter? --Carnildo 03:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A map would be nice

A map showing just what is considered to be the gun quarter would be nice. 14:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)