Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1

The replica

I'm sorry to have this disagreement. This article is essentially, like any other on steam locomotives, a historical one. That's only the historical details should go into it. Preservation is mentioned of course, but after information such as service details, withdrawal dates, etc. That's what you would find in a professional standard book, even one written after

The main difference is that this engine did not run in BR service. Furthermore, the replica has its own article into which technical details, etc, can go. --Tony May (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which era a locomotive runs in is irrelevant. What books that have not even been printed yet might say is irrelevant. What you personally want to be called a Peppercorn A1 is irrelevant. Given this situation is unique, what occurs in other class articles is irrelevant. This is not a replica, this is the 50th member of the class. They replicated the design to create a new member of the class, they did not replicate an existing class member as an act of preservation. The clue is in the number. This position is supported by reliable primary and secondary sources. The actual differences between the original 49 and the belated 50th are clear enough in the article to the reader without your edits. If you disagree, follow the proper procedure and seek a third opinion, do not edit war to restore your personal opinion as you are already doing. If you revert the sourced version again without any sources to back up your position, I will have to issue you with a 3RR warning. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, really it's not. I see no reason why This is the same reason why, for example, there are seperate tables of named engines containing those named in service and those named in preservation. This is why the replica Iron Duke or replica Rocket are not counted as amongst the originals. Thank you for your understanding. Tony May (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS please cite your sources that show it would be considered to be the fiftieth member by historians. That an additional replica is preserved is well noted in the article. Considering it as the fiftieth is original research. I know it's new and exciting but it's really not original, and I'm afraid there was no real 61603. Tony May (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also other replicas: Iron Duke, Stephenson's Rocket, GWR 4300 Class, Sans Pareil Planet (locomotive); they are all considered separately. Don't get me wrong 61603 is a wonderful machine, but it is clearly not an BR machine. Sorry if I am being a bit forthright, but the issue is fairly clear. Tony May (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeat for the last time, it is not a replica. Nor is the project anything like Iron Duke, Rocket or rebuilding one loco to make another like the fauc 4300.

But this is just answering opinion with opinion, so now to sources, which you have failed to acknowledge in your last reverts. For a source that states it is an A1 class locomotive, see the source in the article right now (the version before your edit warring reverts). For sources that state it is the fiftieth of the class (aside from the great big number on the front of it), as well the Trust's stated position, see the article in the April 2008 issue of Railway Magazine, The Tornado Story, page 15. I quote:

"the new loco would carry the running number 60163 - next in sequence after St Johnstoun" ... "From its earliest days, the A1 Trust regarded 60163 not as a replica or copy of any one of the 49 Peppercorn A1's, but as the 50th member of the class" (italics mine obviously).

Therefore, despite your claim, judging by primary and secondary sources, it is not original research to state it is the 50th Peppercorn A1. Whatever you want to classify it as, without a source, it remains unverified opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional source just found: the IMechE - lecture will cover the history of the Peppercorn Class A1s, the design and manufacturing of the 50th A1 Tornado and its first 6 months of operation in main line service. MickMacNee (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, and was it ever taken into BR stock? No. To put it with the other machines is patently absurd. I forgot, btw, the other replicas. They're also building a new Patriot, -- what are you going to have there, two (4)5551s? Std 2 tank 84030 will really be 78059 rebuilt - what are you going to put the build date as there? It is clearly better to split than lump. By lumping you just confuse things. The replica (and it is a replica, even a next in sequence replica) adequately covered in the article. I ask you to seriously reconsider. Tony May (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not reconsider when the only justification you have is your opinion. It is not a replica, the fact that it is is your own opinion. There is no reason to split, you cannot seriously be suggesting people are so stupid as to think that despite all the explanatory wording in the article backed by sources, that just because it is included on the end of a table and in the specs that the old Darlington works must have remained oper for 40 years just to roll out a 50th modified loco for BR.

I haven't examined the other projects, and other stuff is not relevant in so few cases anyway, certainly not when it is used to overrule locally sourced information to that article. But if I ever edit their articles, I am sure that as in this case, anything regarding their status that can be sourced will stand over anybody's personal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not my opinion it is clear historical fact. Let me repeat this: 60163 was not built by BR. It was never taken into stock by BR. Ergo it is not a BR engine, and should not be listed with the others. It really is that simple. Furthermore, consistency is clearly important, as is making sure that information is accurate and succinct. I'm sorry if you can't see this and want to bully your way forward. Tony May (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BR has nothing to do with it. There will be no source from the BR days that can refute the fact that today, sources consider 60163 the 50th Peppercorn A1. Even given the historical facts, the information is perfectly accurate, unless as I said you think people are so stupid as to think there could be a 40 year gap in production of the same machine, despite the numerous directions otherwise in the article. Whatever you think is important to the article is irrelevant without providing sources to state that Tornado is not the 50th Peppercorn A1 locomotive. That's the way it is. As you are now resorting to personal attacks while not bringing anything else to the table, I think we're done here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course BR has everything to do with it. They were BR engines. Stock lists are very important, a quick glance at that makes it look like there were 50 engines in this class when there were 49. The replica was constructed 40+ years after the last one was scrapped! Take a look at any Ian Allan stockbook from before 1967 (when steam ended on the Eastern Region). I can also see little point in carrying on repeating myself. Tony May (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel quite confident that nobody would be confused by this article if they spent more than 5 seconds reading it. I have no idea why you think a book from 1967 is going to shed any light on the subject at all, unless you think its athors were mind readers and knew for certain that nobody would ever build a 50th in the A1P class. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being misrepresented Mr MacNee. Of course, I do not expect the author of a genuine stock list to have a crystal ball. I expect the stock list to be accurate and identical to the genuine stock list. As it was when they were in BR stock. I have already explained this at great length the reasons why it should not be listed. Perhaps you would care to read them again? Tony May (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has not changed since your first revert, and you have resumed edit warring again. You are removing sourced material in favour of opinion. Do not revert again without providing a source. You have been warned twice now. If you simply wait 24 hours to game the system as you just did, I am sure this will be taken into account. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Quote:

"new locomotive representing an evolution of the Peppercorn A1 design"

If it's an evolution, surely it should be called A1/1 or A1/2. Biscuittin (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but it never has been by reliable sources. For wikipedia to come to that not unreasonable conclusion and then state it as fact would be original research MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, getting back to the central point here: Had it been an BR-ER engine, it may well have been given a classification. However, Tornado is a non-exact replica and not an original engine. Hence it was never numbered by BR, and never classified by them either. As a final note, the Great Northern rebuild was classified A1/1. --Tony May (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And to reiterate, what you think it is is not relevant, if disputed by sources. If you can find a source stating Tornado is an A1/2 or an A1/3 or an A1/New or whatever, that would honestly be fantastic. Personally, I've seen nothing even coming close to doing that, let alone disputing its status as a Pepp A1. We can all interpret historic (or even current) class practices to then say what Tornado is, buts its all irrelevant without sources. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good example of what would be original research (disallowed) v. what is mere observation (allowed). Apparently some have difficulty telling them apart. Tony May (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article perfectly represents the observations of several current sources. Asserting that a list of Peppercorn A1 locomotives compiled in 2008 would not include Tornado is what is original research, being as it is totally unsupported by sources. MickMacNee (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when did it enter BR stock? Clearly it is better to deal with it separately. Also, please don't change the table format. Tony May (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only a BR stock list if you want to assert your personal opinion that it is. Your idea of what is 'clearly' fact has no legitimacy on this article, especially when you ignore the advice of third parties and of sources. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tornado

Whether Tornado is, or is not, the 50th member of the class is a matter of opinion, not of fact. I therefore think the heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class" is inappropriate. I suggest shortening the heading to "Tornado" and putting in the text a statement that some people regard it as the 50th member of the class. Biscuittin (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources disagree. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are statements of opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources are verifiable. Your opinon is not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

An opinion does not become a fact simply because it is written down. Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the Wikipedia foundation, as that is a core principle of the encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I agree that there are sources which state that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. What I do not understand is why you regard these sources as incontrovertible. Biscuittin (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you haven't refuted them? MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was never taken into BR stock. Hence it shouldn't be listed in the BR stock list. Tony May (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no end to this dispute so I have added a "Controversy" section to the article. Biscuittin (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Look, I understand where you are coming from, but on wikipedia, you are never going to make a 'controversy' section stick as encyclopoedic fact if your sources are 'some enthusiasts think...' It's just not going to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough on this point I agree with him. However, the replica should still be dealt with separately, as already explained at length above. Tony May (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

'some enthusiasts think...' is perfectly true and verifiable. There are two of them on this page. Is Mr MacNee claiming that Mr May and I do not exist? Biscuittin (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What Mr MacNee seems to be saying is that nobody is allowed to disagree with him. Biscuittin (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have said already I can see where you are coming from. But what you or I think is not citeable as fact in the encyclopoedia. If you found any reliable sources desdribing the debate, or disputing Tornado's status as an A1, or the 50th A1, or whatever, that would be great, and would be a good addition to the articles. However, personal opinion is never going to be acceptable for addition. This really is a basic principle of wikipedia, it is not something that is open to interpretation at all. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, it's at WP:EAR#LNER Peppercorn Class A1. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be remembered that this is an encyclopedia not a railway fan boy site, I dont see why Tornado can not be added to the list of engines it is clear from the text and the context that it is a new engine. A reader seeing 60163 and listed as a A1 would be confused if they could not find it in the list. It appears that being the 50th member has been referenced and as long as it is a reliable source I dont see the problem. If you are concerned that it gives a wrong impression then if you can find a reliable source that says 50th member is disputed then that could be added to balance the statement. We have to remember that what is required is verifiable and reliable sources not opinion or original research. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is indeed subtle, and lost on people, but as I have explained at length it is an important one. Tony May (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To MilborneOne: I think references are irrelevant because they can only be used to establish facts. The claim that 60163 is the 50th member of the class is an opinion (of the A1 Trust) not a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I have rewritten a lot of this article to partly sidestep most of the above, partly to copyedit (and spelling).

Now, unfortunately, in an attempt to support his point of view, MacNee introduced some references and text with the aim of supporting his view. Unfortunately it did not make for great content. FWIW, I have no doubt it is of the same type (though maybe not the same class), and agree it is not an exact replica, but neither is it an original engine either. The section should be kept relatively short, with most of the in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, which is a great article mostly written by MacNee, and I'm sure the issue is very close to his heart and I'm also sure were all very grateful for that.

I suspect MacNee will revert to his version, but I'd ask him to work off this version if at all possible, and see if there is anything left which he thinks should still be included. --Tony May (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Still think Tornado should be on the list of engines as it takes more room explaining why it is not there. Also the term BR stock list is probably not needed most readers dont have a clue what it means it is just a list of engines and should be changed back to the original title Names of Peppercorn A1 locomotives or something similar. I also think that the text on Tornado could be reduced to a few lines as it has its own article with all the relevant detail - no need to repeat it here. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the section as you suggest. Please see also my note in the previous section of the talk page about the distinction between facts and opinions. Biscuittin (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have reverted, because as I see it, this was not a compromise version at all, but by and large a wholesale reapplication of changes that are opposed by sources and other editors (plural). Simply, multiple people have stated the changes are not needed, because to both the layman and the expert, this article is perfectly understandable. Quibbling about the fact that the list of locomotives should actually be a BR stock list is almost irrelevant to the point of pure pedantry, the scope for confusion when considering the article as a whole is negligable. And trying to get wikipedia articles to resemble printed books supercede by events is also not the primary goal of wikipedia.

Sure, people can argue that in their opinion it should have been called a Peppercorn A1/1, or that it is built 40 years later so it should never have been called the 50th in the class or given a BR number, but the fact remains, that is all personal opinion. What is paramount to the article, is to reflect what sources say. The fact is, per NPOV, we do not go around 'copyeditting' articles to match our preferred personal opinions if the changes dispute sourced information. But that leaves the door open to anyone who actually has a counter indicative source to actually add it, which is a standard wikipedia practice pointed out to Tony May now by three people. If readers have doubts at the veracity/authenticity of cliams made, as per normal practice, the full source details for the article information is provided for them to make up their own minds.

As for shortening the specific Tornado section, I disagree on that, based on the fact that all the detail in that section relates specifically to the motivations, features and differences as it relates to the other 49 described here, so it is of value to have it here for comparison, rather than expect a reader to pick it all out from the lengthy Tornado article which has lots of information not related to this article at all. Also, where it is not totally off topic, the basic principle on wikipedia is abundancy, not brevity. MickMacNee (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the criticisms made by Mr MacNee apply equally to him. I have explained why sources are irrelevant because they relate to an opinion, not a fact. He seems to believe that his opinion is more valid than others and that he is the sole judge of what is a "good" version of the article. Biscuittin (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the claim that the article is easily understandable applies with Tornado listed with originals applies to both versions, which makes that argument totally redundant. Indeed, it is slightly clearer separately, but also much more accurate. Tony May (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating your personal opinion time and again does not make it true, does not refute the sources, and does not make your opinion any more relevant than the three people who disagree with you. Frankly, how can even claim your single personal opinon is more accurate when you want to call it a replica, when that description is contradicted by both primary and secondary sources, just bemuses me. I have no idea why you don't even see that is 100% contrary to wikipedia policy. And frankly, your editorialising additions such as "obviously it never entered BR stock" [1], therefore it wasn't part of the original class, therefore it can't be in the table of locomotives, because I have chosen to label it a BR stock list, is a total insult to the reader's intelligence. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a single personal opinion - I agree with Mr May. You may be technically right about Wikipedia policy but I think you are Wikilawyering. Biscuittin (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From the A1 steam trust

See the table in this page: [2]

Also see the technical information [3], in which the alteration made to the replica is missing.

I think it is quite appropriate that railway enthusiast who wrote that page sees fit to separate them as would any railway historian. Tony May (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From the first link - Have you ever wondered why one of the original Peppercorn class A1s .... So just what exactly is your point here? That there were 49 original Peppercorn A1s is not in dispute, the article states it quite clearly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My point, as has always has been it that they should be treated separately. That's the only way of sensibly doing it when all factors are considered properly. Tony May (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point has always been that the article should reflect your personal opinion, despite what anybody else tells you, or what sources say. For a rebuttal of this perception, if you honeslty still don't get it, just re-read everything above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not an opinion it is an observation. As we have discovered "Anyone else" means you and "sources" where the whole class is discussed - [4] [5] always discuss them separately. This is the most logical way of doing it. Have you actually read any books on railway history? --Tony May (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Had you done as requested and actually looked above, you will see there are two other human editors on wikipedia who don't share your 'obsevation'. We can discuss railway books if you like (As with every other point already responded to many times now, I have already pointed out why the format of historic books is pretty irrelevant to wikipedia), we can discuss what sometimes happens when editors only ever edit in one low traffic area, and do not then gain the requesite experience of what is the accepted common practice across any subject area of wikipedia, where established policies and practices take precedent over your personal likes and dislikes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My point, and I think Mr May's as well, is that the claim that Tornado is the 50th member of the class is controversial so the article should present both sides of the controversy to provide a Neutral Point of View. You seem determined to pretend that no controversy exists. Biscuittin (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. --Tony May (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPOV policy. Your idea of representing controversy does not equate to 'represent individual editors opinions'. The article actually complies with that policy as it cites the wheres/whos/whens of the claims being made, and lets the facts speak for themselves. Tony May on the other hand seeks to specifically go against the policy with uncited editorialsing additions to support his point of view, which is not representing anything but his personal opinion. By all means tag the article as having a disputed neutrality per NPOV. All that will happen is that when nobody produces a source to illustrate a controversy even exists in sources, it will be removed. NPOV is for treating sources equally, not editors opinions equally. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I think Mr MacNee's point about references probably relates to this from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true".

However, this policy is not being applied consistently. There is a dispute at Talk:Water Fuel Museum where the reverse argument is being deployed. The pro-water fuel lobby has produced numerous references to support its case but the anti-water fuel lobby is arguing that these references should be disregarded because they are "unscientific". Biscuittin (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with MacNee's references is that they were specifically cherry picked to support his spurious point of view. As a result, they were all trying to make the same point and the prose was terribly written. If they are on the 60163 replica then they should be in that article, which can be considered a subarticle. This article should mostly be about the original 49 engines that formed the class. As a result, the section on 60163 should be a simple, short summary. Tony May (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have said already I will accommodate any contrary source you find. You have provided none. The only terribly written prose are sentences phrased to treat the reader as an idiot, of the sort "obviously it never entered BR stock", something that is as plain as day in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a source to prove that there is a controversy. There are hundreds of words on this page which prove that there is a controversy. Biscuittin (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts, that is exactly what you cannot do. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends whether you prefer to rely on bureaucracy or common sense. Biscuittin (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate class

My opinion (and I agree that it is an opinion) is that Tornado is a new and unique locomotive. It is based on a Peppercorn Class A1, but it is not a Peppercorn Class A1, so it should be treated separately. This practice is already well established in Wikipedia. For example, the BR standard class 2 2-6-0 is based on the LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-0 but it is not treated as a continuation of the class. Biscuittin (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that it was LNER/BR that decided on their own classification system, and this locomotive was never owned by BR (or LNER), that is true. The analogy is not good however, as both the classes you mentioned were owned by BR and were classified by BR. To be truthful, we are going round in circles here, and slightly arguing past each other. The important point is that 60163 should obviously be treated separately as it is separate chronologically. Why chronology is important has been explained (I hope). Thanks for your input though. Tony May (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We've already been through this. I can state categorically that Tornado is an A1/XXX, I can say it till I'm blue in the face on the talk page, it is totally and utterly irrelevant. Self-referencing wikipedia is also not an accepted practice. These are very basic principles of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made a formal request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1. Biscuittin (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect I've done it wrongly (the instructions are too complicated for me to follow) but, if you are serious about resolving this dispute, perhaps you will help me out. Biscuittin (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It will likely be declined as you've jumped a step. You needed to file an article Request For Comment first. I have done so in the below section. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article RFC

Dispute over how to describe 60163 Tornado in the context of this page. For background, the dispute basically takes up this whole page from the very top section.

Comment from MickMacNee

In the article, Tony May wishes to overly separate Tornado, a modern locomotive, from the original 49 locomotives. Namely, by not listing it on a list of locomotives, and by specifically factoring the page variously by changing headers and adding comments/superfluous wording. His justification for this appears to be in the main, his personal wish of how the article should look, but he also cites as a defence, the speculative assumption of what future printed books will look like. Biscuitin objects to certain opinions being presented as fact, namely that Tornado is the 50th Peppercorn A1. I will summarize my position here, referencing my preferred version of the page:

• The fact that Tornado is described as the "50th Peppercorn A1" is traceable to primary and secondary sources
• These sources clearly explain and justify why Tornado was given the next number in this class series, and gives the proper context of how these 'facts' are arrived at through proper verifiable references
• Contrary sources describing anything other than the above have been requested and are not forthcoming. The assertion from Biscuittin that the wording is controversial is simply on the unsourced evidence of this talk page. I remain fully open to discussing any kind of sourceable controversy/difference of opinion.
• The fact that there were 49 originals, and 1 new build, 50 years apart, is already very self evident and fully explained in the article, without Tony May's further changes. Removing Tornado from the table of locomotives is not only overkill, and rather insulting to the intelligence of the reader, but also frequently attracts good faith re-insertions of it from people unaware of Tony May's view of how this article should be
• Tony May wishes to implement, and explain, the difference using specific but badly worded terminology, such as the separation and explanations of 'stock lists' and British Rail numbering practices. The expert reader does not need this unnecessary verbiage, and this languauge is inaccessible to the novice reader. It also contains very bad editoralisations such as 'therefore, obviously....' to support his version.
• Passing comments from two other editors, MilborneOne in here, and AndrewHowse at the linked to Editor Assitance section, have echoed the positions that Tony May's favouring of unsourced opinion over verifiable content is not appropriate, and/or the article is accessible to the reader as it is.

MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Biscuittin

My main objection is to the heading "Tornado - 50th member of the class". This states, as a fact, that Tornado is the 50th member of the class. It is not a fact, it is an opinion of the A1 Trust. I think it is misleading to present an opinion as a fact. Mr MacNee has provided sources to the opinion but sources do not convert an opinion into a fact. Biscuittin (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tony May

Thank you for your attention.

I believe that the summary of the articles should be as follows: This article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should primarily be about the LNER Peppercorn Class A1s, i.e. the original engines. The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado should be mostly about the new build engine. Both should be cross-linked however and appropriately mentioned in both. And 60163 Should be mentioned in the A1 article, in a "preservation" section (under whatever name), below the "withdrawal" section and above the models section. It should not be listed with the original engines in the stock list.

MacNee, typically, has misunderstood or misrepresented my views here, so please allow me to explain them properly.

The main points to be made

• The original engine was never a BR engine. This is, from a historical point of view, of the highest importance. This is a historical article. Professional quality books aimed at the railway enthusiast will always separate service from preservation. This approach is best, indeed it is the historian's approach. Although I may not be able to provide absolute proof of this that will satisfy MacNee, I can tell you that from my extensive reading railway history books, any author worth his salt would never lump these two together. Indeed, this approach is taken by two of the webpages I will show you: LNER Encylcopedia by Richard Marsden, which is of almost professional standards, and indeed the A1 Steam Trust themselves separate them: [6] [7]. This latter webpage partially refutes MacNee's main argument, which as we shall see is based upon a misquotation or misunderstanding from the Trust's website.

That is the main reason, though the following are secondary arguments which also apply:

• Chronology; it is better for the article to flow chronologically, so a a story can be told. Viz: Background-construction-service-withdrawal-(forty year gap) - new build.
• Using false (usually vacant) numbers is actually quite common in preservation - I can give you half a dozen examples if you wish. It is also fairly common to name preserved locomotives with names they did not carry in service. Again, it is customary to treat these engines, as preserved, differently from the main engines when they were in service. Doing it in this case sets a very bad precedent, and is inconsistent with other articles.
• It is clearer to split rather than lump.
• Biscuittin, thinks that it is debatable whether 60163 is indeed Class A1. In one sense it most certainly wasn't; since it was never an LNER/BR engine, it was never classified by the LNER/BR, it could not possibly have been, and therefore didn't belong to that class. It is a non-exact replica, for reasons I shall explain.

MacNee's arguments

MacNee's principle argument is based upon a quotation from the A1 Steam Trusts webpage [8]:

From the very beginning the Trust regarded Tornado not as a replica or copy of any one of its 49 predecessors, but as the fiftieth A1

He claims that this is "proof" that is is an A1 and therefore should be listed amongst the others. But he fails to understand the why the A1 Steam Trust took this approach, and instead adds his own interpretation so that it appears to support his point of view. Now the quote actually continues:

This simple decision gave the Trust licence to make small changes to the design to better suit modern manufacturing techniques and to fit in with the modern high speed railway, while remaining demonstrably faithful to the greater part of the original design

MacNee omits this second part.[9] Now, to explain what they really mean: For engineering reasons, changes have had to be made to the original design, hence it is not an exact replica. This makes perfectly good engineering sense - engineering is the real life application of science. But from a historical point of view, it is largely irrelevant as the reasons explained above are more important. Indeed, as previously explained, the separate approach is itself taken by the A1LST because this is the only logical way of doing it.

I will now deal with MacNee's secondary points:

• MacNee's point that the reader won't miss that 60163 is a replica if it is listed with the originals is not really a point at all. Clearly, the reader will still realise that there is a replica because he (or she) is told in the lead and it is further explained, chronologically, further down the article, and in a separate article. So that negates any supposed "advantage" of listing it there.
• MacNee's accusation that this is "original research" is stretching that definition to its limits. It is mere observation, and, if any more proof is needed, I again refer back to the two web pages I referred to earlier which adopt the same approach: [10] [11][12]. If anything is original research it is MacNee's bizarre interpretation of the quote from the A1SLT.
• MacNee's accusation that adding such information that the "never entered BR stock" is too verbiage, perhaps, but that can be tidied as necessary. However, it is hardly rewriting a whole section (with no sensible paragraph structure) with selective interpretation of quotations that support your opinion, as MacNee did. The text indeed may be necessary because apparently there is at least one editor who does not appear to understand this.

Conclusion

The danger of course is that people say, "oh go on then" and let MacNee have his way. I fear that this is what might happen if you are not a well-read railway enthusiast and so not understand the historical points above. This point has also been made by User:Biscuittin, and I agree with him. Unfortunately, MacNee's way is so very wrong that it fundamentally ruins the article.

I have tried to compromise with MacNee, and ignore or sidestep most of his more illogical points, but he has just continued nevertheless.

Furthermore, MacNee IMVHO has engaged in attempted bullying, edit warring, violation of WP:OWN, and wikilawyering, editing the article to specifically support his opinion, by selectively quotation and interpretation of said quotes (and in doing so reducing its quality), and generally failing to get any point at all. I'm sorry to make such accusations, but I do so based on experience. I do not feel that MacNee will be genuinely offended by them, though they may anger him.

I will also say FWIW that MacNee has written most of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, and on that he has done a very good job there. That however does not make him the be-all and end-all expert on a collaborative Wiki. IMVHO he has not doing a reasonable job here. Thanks for your attention --Tony May (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with what Mr May says. I am particularly annoyed that Mr MacNee refuses to accept that there is a controversy about this article and relies on legalistic arguments. I think the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)