Talk:Cold iron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Article Structure

I'm beginning to think that part of the problem here is that we're dealing with a "loaded" term. In some contexts it's clearly just poetic license, while in others it's technical jargon, in many cases it's folkloric (slippery at best), and other uses are purely fictitious. Perhaps we should think of this more as a disambiguation page? I'm not saying that we should create multiple articles out of it. Well, maybe the mythology stuff, that's a whole other ball of wax anyway. Comments? --Dunkelza 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

I think {{not verified}} is still required along with {{fiction}}; who knows the scope of cold iron myths? It needs a source. Melchoir 23:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some references to more modern usages, but I'm drawing a blank so far with references from legends. I'll go through some old fairy tales for some. Arbadihist 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/i/iron.html cites this source:
Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft. New York: Facts On File, 1989 [ISBN 0-8160-2268-2]
The "Witching Hours" (a historical research site) http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/wards_tools/iron.html lists the following additional sources:
Briggs, Robin. Witches & Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk: HarperCollins Publishers. 1996.
Elworthy, Frederick Thomas. The Evil Eye: An Account of This Ancient and Widespread Superstition. New York: Bell Publishing Company. 1989.
Actually, Rudyard Kipling's book Rewards and Fairies mentions the anti-fairy superstition in a story called (appropriately enough) Cold Iron. This is different from the poem of the same name. It gets into Puck and such: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/556
Here's another 19th century reference: http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/01/016/01.htm#VI._IRON
Lawrence, Robert Means, M.D.. The Magic of the Horseshoe with Other Folk-Lore Notes. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1898
--Dunkelza 02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I added those, and I think that I'll remove the "needs verification" label. Arbadihist 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Rewards and Fairies mention the anti-fairy superstition in the context of cold-worked iron, or just "iron" with the customary epiphet? There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that "Cold Iron" is simply "iron"; the term is old, but the distinction seems to be much more modern. (and may be a modern fantasy invention to not have -all- iron and steel be "Cold Iron"). 38.96.160.226 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Cold wrought is modern fiction nonsense. DreamGuy 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Cold iron is just an archaic term for "wrought iron." The stuff about hammering it without heating is nonsense, wrought iron is heated to purify it. It should be noted that prior to the 14th century, pretty much all iron used in europe would have been "wrought iron." Other methods of purifying/hardening the iron had not yet made it to europe (although I'm not sure, they may have already had steel in parts of Asia.) Other than the mistake of assuming it's somehow different from Wrought Iron, the mythological and superstitious ideas are historical and backed by the sources. (JP)
Bealer mentions cold hammering as a hardening technique in his book, which is a practical guide to blacksmithing compiled from historical and first-hand sources. Remember that steel was relatively rare in Europe until the 19th Century, when cast steel became widely available. Since wrought iron does not harden when quenched and cannot be tempered, cold hammering was the only method for hardening. Modern horseshoes are not cold hammered because they are made from steel, not iron.
Also, Wrought iron was heated to make it more malleable. Heating it after smelting actually produces "scale", which is an impurity, so heating doesn't remove impurities, it adds them. This, and the conservation of fuel is why smiths try to complete work in the fewest "heats" possible. --Dunkelza 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with supporting the idea that "cold iron" meant anything beyond "iron" in general. Your sources do not support that. At all. So you arguments are pointless.DreamGuy 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meteoric Iron

I know of no mythological support for "cold iron" being of meteoric origin. As far as I know, this interpretation of "cold iron" comes from fantasy tole-playing games. I am going to add a {{verify source}} tag. If no one can produce a citation for this assertion within a reasonable amount of time, I think this assertion should be amended or removed.

I can't see anything in here anymore that would warrant this article as being listed with those with unverified statements. However, when I tried to remove the appropiate tag, I couldn't find it anywhere. Any suggestions as to where it's hiding? Arbadihist

I agree. There is no source I can find about cold iron being meteoric in origin. (JP)
I think it's less specifically RPG and more related to 20th century fantasy literature in general. Ford MF 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You are probably correct. I can't find any sources, though, so maybe we should nix the meteoric bit? --Dunkelza 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Already removed by me along with all the other nonsense in the article. I can't believe that bit stayed there as long as it did. DreamGuy 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is nonsense

All this stuff about "cold iron" being cold wrought iron is just nonsense. In the original tales ALL IRON was protective against fairies and etc., as seen by the horseshoe examples (horseshoes are NOT cold wrought). Someone used "cold iron" in a poetic sense, like "cold steel" etc., and then some clueless people later thought "cold iron" had some specific meaning other than just iron. All this crap about cold wrought, and especially meteorites is just nonsense mostly people playing fantasy roleplaying games and writing bad fiction came up with. This whole article needs to be rewritten and purged of nonsense. Roleplaying game books absolutely do n ot count as reliable sources for Wikipedia topics like this. User:DreamGuy 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, and for taking it to the talk page, but in the future please refrain from editorializing within the article itself. (Diff) Ford MF 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, except there are reputable sources (non-Roleplaying) provided on this page, but you don't provide any sources at all. (JP)
No... Most of the sources are not reliable in the slightest, some ARE ropleplaying based, and the only others there only support small side sections and not the overall claim about what "cold iron" means. DreamGuy 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems the only reason you think those peer reviewed history books listed above are unreliable then is that they disagree with you? Where's your source? (JP)
What peer reviewed history books??? None of them claim what this article claims. Where are YOUR sources? DreamGuy 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, there is plenty of information cited and deeper reading of Bealer and other books on historical metalurgy bears out the article. Unless DreamGuy can provide strong counter evidence, I'm going to remove the dubious tags. --Dunkelza 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You make the claim, but you don't bother to prove any of this. You will not remove any of the tags until you give real sources and ones that say what the article says, not something else entirely. Fantasy roleplaying books are not sources. DreamGuy 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The fantasy roleplaying stuff was the ORIGINAL content of this article, written before I touched the article. I expanded the article to include factual information, which is referenced. You provided no counter references, yet you totally rewrote the article. If you don't understand the concept of Work Hardening or what Wrought Iron is and isn't, you should not be editing this article at all. --Dunkelza 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've seen the article as you had left it. It's clear you are the one who had no business editing this page. And, once again, I did provide counter sources, and the counter sources are in the article, so you are either refusing to see them or outright lying at this point.DreamGuy 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, take a look at the history of an article before attacking the editors. I also played a large role in trying to move away this article away from purely fantasy, though such things do have a place here, as it is an aspect of popular culture relevant to this article. Dunkelza has supplied his sources. Now you can provide your sources that state that which you claim. If not, and you insist on ragging on the sources that previous editors have provided, I will be forced to put a needs verification label on anything you put down about there being no difference if you don't provide your sources.Arbadihist 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I DID provide sources, you never had any sources, and Dunkelza's sources DO NOT SAY WHAT HE IS CLAIMING THEY SAY. Both of you at this point are simply lying. There is no way any sane person can sit here and claim that I don't have sources when the sources are right their in the article, proving your old version wrong, and have been there before I even came along. DreamGuy 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insulting and poorly written critiques on this page

I just cleaned up a bunch of poorly written and inflammatory edits to the main page that basically called the people who wrote it ignorant and uneducated and called all the points crap without proposing any sources for what they were saying. Wikipedia is not your personal message board/flame-playground. Keep it professional and civil. Furthermore, the article does cite sources and provide references. They do not support all of the claims in it, but it is not without reference. The disputed tag applies, the references required only applies to a few specific comments in the article, so does not belong at the top of the page. (JP)

There were no sources for what the article was claiming, so complaining that I did not give any sources is utter nonsense. And the references that are here only support the most trivial claims in the article and not the major ones, the very ones that were used to rationalize even having an article on it in the first place. DreamGuy 11:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are provided. If you don't bother to read them or to consult other sources to learn anything about blacksmithing, that's your problem. Don't mess with an encyclopedic article or insult the people who DID their homework, just because you refuse to. --Dunkelza 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you call using unreliable sources and what you picked up in fantasy gaming "homework"... nope, sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not fantasypedia. DreamGuy 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As one of the people who first helped to bring this article up from stub-dom, though I haven't improved as much as I could, being lazy, I feel the need to comment. First, I let the wrought iron references slide because I didn't have enough time to properly research at that time. Having looked into a little, I have arrived at my present train of thought, which is that while iron was believed to have magical properties whether cold forged or not, the origin of the separate term, "cold iron" may have originated with the methods of smithing that don't use heat. The term "cold iron" probably did not have an especial significance in the period during which this belief was widely prevalent in most classes of society, but eventually this term did arise, and it did acquire its present association with superstitition, which may or may not have come from modern fantasy, thus, I think that a reference to smithing, if verifiable is worth mentioning. Even supposing that the modern meaning of cold iron does come from fantasy, that still doesn't make the topic "Cold Iron" non-encyclopedic. And I agree, in the future, we should all try to be civil, and that includes your responses in this talk page, Dreamguy.Arbadihist 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your "present train of thought" doesn't interest me... that's mere original research and cannot be allowed into the encyclopedia. Unless you can provide real, reliable sources to prove what you say, especially as it contradicts the sources in the article about horseshoes and etc., you absolutely cannot put your mere beliefs into the article. If you want "civil" you and your cohort have to stop labeling badly needed fixes to the article as "vandalism"... and respect is something that is earned, your actions on this article show that there is no reason to respect you at this time. If you want to take the time to educate yourself, both about the topic and how Wikipedia works, then you will ge my respect. Until that time you're just someone who is trying top push some fantasy you cooked up in your head into what's supposed to be a scholarly article. DreamGuy 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the double post, but after looking furhter into the above references edits, I have to say that you were completely out of line, Dreamguy. When you come to an article that people are working on (Though I do chastise myself for my sloth) I would expect some common courtesy such as reasoned arguments as to why you are making extreme changes, and then make the changes in a scholarly way. What you did was tantamount to vandalism. It was rather exhibitionist in my opinion. Why don't we talk about this reasonably instead.Arbadihist 09:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, from your comments and actions on this article, it's clear that your version of "out of line" and what "scholarly way" means are totally at odds with how Wikipedia does things. Fixing an article so it's more factual is NOT VANDALISM. It's more vandalism to restore an article to a bad version based off of bad fantasy fiction you read and got suckered into believing.DreamGuy 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be merged

There is no source here which distinguishes Cold Iron from Wrought Iron. There is some content here that has valid sources and does not appear in the Wrought Iron article, however. I think in general the contents of this page should be added to the wrought iron section, and the search Cold Iron should redirect to Wrought Iron. (JP)

I would agree with getting rid of this article, but there is no evidence that "cold iron" means anything different from "iron" in general, so Wrought iron may not be the best place for it. I thought we had at some point an article specifically on iron used as protective evil-repelling force with actual real citations and scholarly info, but I don't remember what it was called and can't find it now. An article like that, which clearly shows that the legendary protectiveness is on ALL iron and not just "cold wrought iron" would be the place to send this. I think it also had a section on the "cold iron" nonsense with the truth, and if the article is still around and doesn't have that it can be added. We don;t have to coddle the ignorance of some roleplaying gamers who mix up fiction with history. DreamGuy 11:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that cold iron and iron were interchangeable during early periods, but cold iron did get use as a separate, distinct term later on. I don't have a problem with the article remaining are being merged, as long as there is a section somewhere that gives treatment to this term. Arbadihist 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The separate distinct term only comes from people misreading the term for use in fiction, which of course should be mentioned as that's the primary use of th term these days, but we simply CANNOT say that that's what the word originally meant or that's what the protection of "cold iron" meant in folklore, as the foklore is very clear that it's ALL iron. DreamGuy 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The interchangeability you mention is probably the result of ubiquity. Since most iron tools prior to the 17th or 18th centuries would have been "cold iron", the term probably became generic amongst the general populace. By the late 1700s, though, enough steel became available to allow small steel inserts to be forge-welded into wrought iron bodies, thus allowing tempering and rendering cold-hammering obsolete. It's probably a lot like the term "wrought iron" itself. To a well-trained blacksmith, it's a technical term describing a specific type of material. To most people, "wrought iron" means any ornamental ironwork, most of which is actually cast iron or mild steel.
Anyway, I'm not sure that the articles should be separated. We could certainly clean it up. We should probably remove the nuclear physics bit, for instance. --Dunkelza 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Probably the result of ubiqiuty" in other words, you have no evidence for your side, ignore the clear evidence against it, and want to force your opinion on the article? Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way.DreamGuy 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would characterise this as you barging into an article, disregarding what has already done without being reasonable. Dunkelza has offered reasonable some responses to your arguments, and does appear to have some evidence. If you want drastic changes, you need evidence that this term wasn't used until very recently. I believe that I offered evidence of an instance of its use before modern fantasy fiction, as I referenced Francis Grose's dictionary from 1811. Perhaps (And this is speculation) it was used as a slang term for a weapon because of its previous use against evil spirits.Arbadihist 09:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "barging into" a Wikipedia article. Anyone can edit. And your claims that I was not reasonable do not mean anything when the article itself was so blatantly unreasonable to begin with. Francis Grose's 1811 dictionary does not at all prove that cold iron meant cold wrought iron, quite the opposite in fact, as it was referring to blades that would have been heated to be formed. Your speculation on the term has NO BUSINESS being offered up as proof when we HAVE PROOF that the term DID NOT MEAN COLD WROUGHT because it was referring to horseshoes and fences and so forth. This is an encyclopedia, not a speculate something to try to maybe support something that makes no sense while at the same time demanding someone else provide five times as much proof for what should be obvious if you were paying attention. DreamGuy 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced tags on Fantasy Fiction Claims

The reason that I put the unsourced tag in is because of the statement "Some sources have claimed that 'cold iron' referred only to iron that was wrought without heat. This is a mistake from modern fantasy fiction." I did not put it in for the last sentence about regular iron being a suitable ward against evil spirits. The quoted sentences are unsourced anywhere in the article, and as they are plenty interesting and provocative, I feel that they need to be sourced before they are allowed to continue. To be perfectly clear: it is particularly the second claim, that the modern belief about cold iron comes solely from fantasy fiction that I wish to see confirmed. Thus, the unsourced tag is going back up.

Also, having a section about "Cold Iron In Fantasy Fiction" seems completely frivolous to me. We had a serviceable section about Cold Iron in popular culture, which I seem to remember having a reference from somebody named Charles de Lint as well, to round it out. Anyway, I'm changing it back to the original, and I would ask you to respect that until the editors can have a reasonable discussion about this issue.Arbadihist 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's NOT unsourced, because the previous information shows that "cold iron" referred to horse shoes and other items that were not cold wrought.
And you don't just get to switch it back to an old bad version with NO SOURCES because you choose to ignore the CLEAR SOURCES already given that prove you wrong. DreamGuy 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit comments

The article was reverted with the false claim of "vandalism" -- I highly suggest that the editor who made such a claim go read the vandalism policy and specificallyt he section on what vandalism is NOT. He should apologize for making the deceptive and false edit comment to try to justify his blind revert of badly needed edits, as making false accusations of vandalilsm is a personal attack that can get you blocked.

Bottom line here folks, is that I have all the sources needed to justify the article saying what it does, and those of you who want to revert it back to the wrong information because you have an attachment to wanting to believe the nonsense you picked up from bad fantasy fiction have no sources at all to support your own claims. That means, by all the policies that Wikipedia runs under, that the article has to stay at the more sourced version until you people can come up with reliable, scholarly sources that support your side... and, of course, you can;t, because they don't exist. I will not allow you to hold an article hostage to your own ignorance and desire to tell the whole world some nonsense you picked up from playing Dungeons and Dragons as if it were a historically reliable document. DreamGuy 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You blanked large sections of an article without seeking consensus. That is the FIRST definition of vandalism. You are also dismissing sources out of hand without discussing their shortcomings or attempting to achieve consensus, this indicates that your edits were not made in "good faith". Indeed, you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of blacksmithing or metalworking in general, especially in a historical context. Finally, you accused other editors of ignorance and blamed said alleged ignorance on Dungeons & Dragons. This is both a personal attack against the editors and an epithet against persons who play said game. Despite your near-religious fervor about the "proper" meaning of "cold iron", I have not made any generalizations about various religions or ethnic groups which may consider iron to have special properties. You are required to maintain the same decorum.
As you have not to date behaved in a collegial manner, I am forced to rely on the terms "vandal" or "disruptive editor". When I have more time to waste digging up sources from twenty years worth of study, I'll bring more references. Until then, please review Wikipedia's assorted conduct policies and practice editing in an acceptible and non-inflammatory manner. --Dunkelza 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)