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)

I have provided appropriate references where they are appropriately discussed separately. [6][7] but since they do not agree with MacNee's opinion he has dismissed these out of hand. Tony May (talk) 15:53, 6 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)

• Note: The below section before Arbitrary section break 1 is now a transclusion from Tony May's user page, having previously been first posted here. Since it was first posted here, it has been extensively rewritten by Tony May without signing or marking the changes, therefore any subsequent replies on this page may or may not be relevent to the current contents. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Tony May

{{essay}}

Preface

Thank you for your attention. Firstly, I really apologise for the length of this essay, but there are several points that I would like to discuss. I have chosen to present a case here rather than get into tit-for-tat arguments on talk pages, which serve no purpose whatsoever. As a result of points (whether sensible or not) made by others, or misconceptions, I have updated this page here. Most importantly, and contrary to assertions by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) my main points regarding content here have not changed, though some of the explanations of these points have been elaborated upon as necessary.

I will now explain the importance of a historical approach, MacNee's flawed arguments and point out other secondary arguments which could also be considered. I think MacNee has misunderstood or misrepresented my views here, so please allow me to explain them properly.

Introduction

Schematic of how the article should flow chronologically (red arrows). I think nothing better illustrates the historical gulf between the original 49 engines and the new build.

This dispute is primarily about how to deal with two separate productions of the Peppercorn A1s - should they be treated together as MacNee wants (producing IMVHO a mess), or separately which is the more logical (and professional) way of doing it, and one which reflects all sources? IMVHO, this dispute is primarily about article structure, and I think we should concentrate on that and not be distracted by side issues.

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. This should be done as follows:

• The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should have a #Tornado section, which should be the last section (excluding models, references/footnotes/external links etc), and should consist of a summary of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado.
• The article LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado should have a #Background section, which should be the first section, and should consist mostly of a summary of the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article.

The 49 original locomotives should therefore be treated completely separately from Tornado. In particular for the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article:

1. Tornado should not be listed with the original engines in the stock list - doing so is completely absurd.
2. Technical information about Tornado should be removed from the infobox as unnecessary clutter. If appropriate, a technical comparisons section can be made in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado article instead and the basic differences noted in the text in the Tornado article. Tornado is not sufficiently different to warrant the extra clutter (Update - this has been done and largely been agreed upon now).
3. Tornado should be mentioned in the A1 article, in its own section, equivalent to the standard preservation section on other articles. This should be done in two places and in two places only; briefly in the lead section, and then a short dedicated section under the name #Tornado or similar. This should go chronologically, below the "#Withdrawal" section and above the "#Models" section.
4. Whenever the original 49 engines in the class are discussed, this should absolutely be made explicit to avoid any potential confusions.

I believe Biscuittin (talk · contribs), Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) and I are in general agreement of those points, but MickMacNee (talk · contribs) and Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs) are not.

I would just like to clarify one further point because of a deliberate misrepresentation. I do not think there is any call whatsoever for an additional article on Peppercorn Class A1 design. I also am not calling for the removal of all material related to Tornado in the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article - merely that such material is appropriately located.

Please some time to familiarise yourself with these articles if you have not done so already.

The historical approach

An historical approach is of paramount importance:

• This article contains two main elements: history and engineering. The engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history, whereas the history can be understood with only an elementary understanding of engineering. Hence the history is far more important, and this is primarily a historical article. One can write about the history of engineering, but one cannot write about the "engineering of history"(!).

• Tornado was never a BR engine, i.e. it never entered BR stock - there was no BR engine with the number 60163. This is, from a historical point of view, of the highest importance, and I really cannot emphasise this enough.

Anyway, we will come back to this historical approach later, but first I wish to examine what Tornado is and what she isn't:

What exactly is Tornado?

How Tornado is defined is not a black and white issue; like the engine itself, it is grey.

Biscuittin (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are concentrating on whether Tornado is actually an A1. I will say two things about this. Firstly, both seem to think that this is a black-and-white issue; I consider it to be a grey area. Secondly, I do not believe that this debate is of much more wider significance than the particular relevance to this article. I also believe that this debate is holding back the progress of the article by causing a distraction. This largely revolves around how we define what Tornado is.

• Firstly, regarding classification: In one way certainly, "60163" is not an A1. The LNER, classified its locomotives using a letter + number system, and this approach was continued by British Railways (BR) for ex-LNER locomotives. BR was obviously only able to classify locomotives it owned (or hired), which were taken into stock. BR does not exist any more. This therefore, is essentially a subset of the historical point above. (Indeed, the modern day classification used is not "A1", but Tornado is classified by Network Rail for the TOPS purposes as Class 98, No. 98863).

• Secondly, regarding engineering. It is impossible to create an exact replica of any locomotive for various reasons. Firstly, a working locomotive must be fit for the 21st century railway, so Tornado is necessarily slightly shorter to avoid fouling OHLE, and also the coal/water capacity is different and she has no water scoop as there are no water troughs from which to pick up water en route. Secondly, construction is necessarily different, as for example you can't use asbestos any more, and Tornado has a steel firebox rather than a copper one because of the German experience with steel fireboxes. Thirdly, it may be considered a good idea, purely for engineering reasons, to add slight improvements to the design, (e.g. rebalancing the bogie). An exact replica is therefore impossible.

MacNee is right of course that, from a purely engineering point of view, Tornado is an A1. If it had been a BR engine, it would have been classified with the others, despite the detail differences. But the point we again come back to is the historical one because the engineering cannot be understood without reference to the history.

• Furthermore, Tornado is also different from the original 49 engines in other ways. In addition to the historical difference;
  • It is operationally different, as Tornado will principally be used to haul occasional railtours over the national network, whereas the original engines were used in everyday mainline service.
  • The name Tornado does not reflect the LNER's naming policy. Tornado is named after an aircraft that first flew almost ten years after the last A1 was scrapped. The original 49 were named after racehorses, houses, people. The LNER absolutely had a naming policy for its locomotives; racehorse names in particular were applied to many pacifics.

• Finally regarding history (again) - Tornado is herself of tremendous historical importance. But she is history from 2008, not 1948. She is the first mainline steam locomotive built in Britain since 1960, and given other new build projects, probably not the last. By herself she is more historically important than any one of the 49 original engines, and maybe arguably even the whole of the original class. That is one reason why she has her own separate article.

Specifically, is Tornado the fiftieth A1?

Now we come to the issue of whether Tornado should be described as the "fiftieth A1". Once you appreciate that the A1LST are engineering, their quote becomes understandable. They are approaching Tornado from a purely engineering perspective:

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. 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

Now let us consider specifically this quote:

1. Firstly must note the word regard - they are clearly expressing their own opinion. I assume they regard because they are aware of the history outlined above. Also please note that regard is not as strong as, for example belief, but is synonymous with view, see, or envisage.
2. Furthermore, MacNee completely fails to take into consideration why this decision was made, i.e. "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".

As explained above, historically Tornado did not belong to LNER Class A1 as it was never owned by BR. Therefore, I think describing Tornado as the "fiftieth A1" is a slight oversimplification and one that while not technically true is close enough to the truth to be acceptable for most purposes.

If I may use an analogy, an engineer would also probably tell you that he regards pi as being equal to 3.141. For most engineering purposes this is close enough to the truth. But saying pi=3.141 (especially without any qualification) is demonstrably false and would horrify a pure mathematician (maybe all this shows is that engineers are funny people!).

Most, if not all, of the articles describing Tornado as the "fiftieth member of the class" are secondary sources such as journalists, who are making this slight error. Presumably they are not railway historians. I note that the primary source (the A1LST) does not simply say say Tornado is the fiftieth, but only regards. I assume they regard for the historical reasons outlined above.

This "Tornado=50th" is nevertheless an error however and it is not necessary to make it. I think therefore describing Tornado as the fiftieth member of the class, without qualification (i.e. the who and why) is sloppy. The fact that this simplification is not completely true/is ambiguous/is slightly misleading really means that Wikipedia needs to choose its wording carefully to avoid such a situation. Let's not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Specifically, is Tornado a replica?

This brings us onto the what is a slight side issue, whether Tornado is a replica. First, let us clear up definitions: Replica can be defined as "any close or exact copy or reproduction". Given the engineering point explained above, an exact replica is impossible, which reasonably leaves the only possibility being a close replica.

The points made previously about the A1LST approaching this from an engineering perspective (regarded) remain valid.

Furthermore, please note the subtle semantics involved: "...regarded Tornado not as a replica of any one of its 49 predecessors...". This is quite different to "...regarded Tornado not as a replica". The trust explain why they didn't try to make an exact copy of No. 60126, for example. The question of whether she is a generic replica or non-exact is not actually addressed in this quotation.

Schematic diagram showing the 2-way non-exact replication relationship between each of the original 49 locomotives. In contrast, non-exact replication of Tornado is one way.

Of course, in one sense, and once constructiod had finished, every one of the original locomotives was a non-exact replica of each and every one of other 48. But all the 49 Peppercorn Class A1 locomotives classified A1 and existed concurrently with each other. And that's the most important thing about them. Even more importantly however, the original 49 were not all non-exact replicas of Tornado which was built 60 years later. Thus (non-exact) replication is one way in the case of Tornado v. the original 49 but two way within the original class. Tornado is clearly different and this arises because of the historical difference.

There are other opinions as well; both Michael Binyon of The Times (2008-08-02 & 2008-10-09) and by Graham Tibbetts and Andrew Cave of The Daily Telegraph 2006-05-07 & 2008-08-01 use the word "replica". However, I would prefer to eschew press sources as the quality of journalism varies. Rather I'd prefer to rely on the primary source of the A1LST themselves, and common sense.

Regarding self-identification - that the A1LST choose not to use the word "replica", is their prerogative. The A1LST also seem not to use the word "preservation", despite the fact that they are clearly part of the British railway preservation movement. Hence, on reflection, I think that the words "replica" or "preservation" should not be used in the article, out of deference to their views, and to avoid any confusion. However, I think that this means that the wording has to be appropriate. Presently, it is extremely crude and inaccurate. Let's not try to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Article structure (very important)

My rather crude chronology diagram again.

Now we have (hopefully) clarified (1) the importance of history, and (2) what Tornado is and what she isn't. The next question is how to structure the article. Structure is of importance because an article needs structure in order to (1) be accurate and (2) in order to meet WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR standards. I also humbly suggest that structure is necessary to meet relevant professional academic standards, as I will explain.

After the lead section, which summarises the entire article, there should be a chronological flow of the article. This is because it is historical article. (If anyone has any other sensible suggestions on how to structure it, then please say because I can think of none.) So a typical outline would be:

1. Background
2. Construction
3. Stock list
4. Service
5. Withdrawal
6. Tornado
7. Models
8. References/ External links, etc

Structuring the article chronologically clearly makes any inclusion of Tornado in the middle of the discussion of the original engines completely anachronistic. There is a reason why time travel is science fiction.

This approach is logical, and follows the general format of what I have read in railway books. Not to be content with just asserting this without evidence however, I asked expert railway historian Dave Hunt this question. Full details of the exchange may be found at (User:Tony May/A1/BDH), but I shall quote the most important part:

Were I to be writing about the A1s, I would mention the building of Tornado in the postscript but omit any reference to it in the main text. I would also consider putting an appendix at the end covering its construction but only briefly.

If I were reviewing a book that included Tornado in the A1s, it would detract from my opinion of it and I would say so in any review.

To repeat then: Tornado should be discussed extremely briefly in the lead (~1 sentence) and then briefly under a separate heading (~1 paragraph).

The lumper-splitter problem

The original 49 engines present a rather homogenous grouping, but Tornado is an outlier and should go in its own outgroup.

A further point to be made is that what is presented to us is a cladistical or "lumpers and splitters" problem, in which case it is IMVHO usually better to split rather than to lump. The 49 original engines are present a very homogenous group; Tornado is an outlier which falls outside this homogeneous group and so should be treated as an outgroup.

If necessary, we can even do some maths to show this. If we quite unnecessarily lump Tornado with the original 49 engines, the average build date of the whole "class" is 1949, but the variance of this is 71. If they are kept separate, the average build date for the original engines is 1948, the variance is 0·25 - (i.e. very compact).

This is reflected in the structure of the articles themselves to some degree - it is why we have a separate LNER Thompson Class A1/1 article, and a separate 60163 Tornado article.

Inter-article structure

In terms of inter-article structure I will say the following: Normally, we would expect an article on a particular locomotive to be the child of an article on its class, e.g. LNER Peppercorn Class A2 is the parent article of LNER Peppercorn Class A2 60532 Blue Peter. However, I do not think that this approach is appropriate here: LNER Peppercorn Class A1 should be seen as the parent article of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. Rather they should be seen as existing in parallel, and they should concentrate on slightly different subject matters.

However, it is important that in terms of structure, the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article matches its parent articles, of which it is a child, as per WP:SS. These are in particular, Steam locomotives of British Railways, on those locomotives in BR stock, and LNER Pacifics, on the pacifics in LNER/BR stock, and Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway, which should include a post-nationalisation section.

Specifically regarding the list of locomotives/stock list

The main problem at the moment with regards to the article is the listing of Tornado within the list of locomotives. This arises out of the problem of the article structure question above. I think that this list is of fundamental importance to the article and should not be shunted aside.

Firstly, I must deal with a side issue regarding the name of this list. This is because MacNee is disingenuously complaining about the use of "stock list", as jargon, which only perhaps serves to indicate his ignorance of railway history. Anyway, either "BR Stock list", or "list of BR locomotives" (or similar) would be acceptable (per above to consider the 49 engines separately but explicitly so). MacNee's preferred "list of locomotives" is not acceptable because it is deliberately vague and ambiguous - MacNee wants the table to be vague and ambiguous so that it quite inappropriately and unnecessarily forces Tornado to be listed there. MacNee apparently objects to the word "stock" as jargon, though I note that it is (a) accurate, and (b) widely used, and (c) that is no more jargon than say "firebox" or "Kylchap". I'm sure if readers were indeed confused and look up stock in the dictionary they'd quickly understand.

Anyway, stock lists are very important, and we must strive to get them as accurate as possible. A stock list reflects the railway company's investment, its operational capabilities, the history of the class members, and so on. Listing Tornado as a member of a class of locomotives wasn't historically part of makes this list decidedly inaccurate and as a result far less useful.

Another point to make is the structure of the stock list itself. Implicitly, the build date column is the date a particular locomotive was taken into stock, and the withdrawal date the date withdrawn from capital stock. Tornado was never taken into stock by BR, and hence never withdrawn. Therefore many of the columns (especially the withdrawal column) do not make sense. There is potential for other details to be added, such as disposal dates, disposal (i.e. scrapyard), liveries, first shed, last shed, etc. None of these makes any sense whatsoever for Tornado.

Even worse news for the stock list including Tornado is that it fails to match any sources and is I suggest original research. I will explain this next.

Sources and original research

To meet quality standards, sources must be reliable, NPOV and contain no original research. I will cite the following sources in support of the fact that they deal with the original 49 engines separately from Tornado (which the first three all mention, and the fourth ignores completely but is presumably kept up-to-date). All of these include a list of locomotives:

• Hugh Longworth - British Railway Steam Locomotives 1948-1968
• Richard Marsden - LNER Encyclopedia
• The A1 Locomotive Steam Trust
• Railuk database

In addition, the above are also consistent with stock lists as available in:

• RCTS LNER Locomotives Vol 2 (often known as green books)
• Yeadon's Register, Vol 2

I also offer the source Classic British Steam Locomotives by Peter Herring which does not include a list of locomotives, but does discuss Tornado as being under construction for roughly one paragraph at the end of his two page treatise.

Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that MacNee can find similar sources which support Tornado being included in such a list. A list must be considered to be more reliable source than a misinterpretation of a quote. Lumping Tornado together with the originals in a list, without providing sources which themselves are lists, is tantamount to original research, and this is especially true when it goes against accepted academic standards. This should clearly be avoided at all costs.

Precedent

Using false (usually vacant) numbers is actually quite common in preservation. I can probably give you a dozen examples if you wish. Lumping Tornado with these is not only inconsistent with other articles, not to mention common sense, it sets bad precedent. This is partly because Tornado will probably not be the last new build steam locomotive built this century.

For example, many Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0STs which were only industrial locomotives, have, in preservation, used false numbers to appear as LNER Class J94. To all intents and purposes they are in engineering terms, identical to the J94s, and appear to be so, but they were never members of that class. It would be absurd to list these together, even if one preservation group decided to "regard x as the 76th member of Class J94".

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. Lumping them together in this case sets a very bad precedent, and is inconsistent with other articles and accepted academic convention (again see User:Tony May/A1/BDH.

I will also give another example which will may soon arise. The LMS Patriot Class. In the case of the Patriots there are no free numbers at either end; (4)5499 was an LMS Black Five, (4)5552 was a Jubilee Class. They will therefore duplicate No. (4)5551 - are we now going to have a list with two 45551s? Listing replicas, or new build locomotives, with the originals should never be done - it is really bad practice.

MacNee's arguments

I will now deal with MacNee's arguments, and show that it consists of poor reasoning and over-interpretation of a single source.

I have already dealt with the first quote above.

MacNee's second source is apparently the IMechE. Let's have a look at this in more detail. It is actually a lecture given to the IMechE by David Elliott, who is "Director of Engineering, The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust". We do not have the lecture slides however, or a video or full transcript or anything like that. All we have is an extremely short abstract which I shall quote in full:

The last of the renowned Peppercorn class A1 steam locomotives was scrapped in 1966. But, a brand new A1, 60163 Tornado, has been built at the Darlington Locomotive Works by The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. Tornado was due to move for the first time under its own steam in August 2008 and enter main line service by the end of 2008. This 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.

Firstly, Elliott represents not the IMechE, as MacNee might lead us to believe but again the A1LST, so the source is in effect the same as the above (it is likely that Elliott wrote his own abstract). I have already explained the reasons why it is a non-exact replica, and this does nothing to contradict this. MacNee reads far too much into this extremely short paragraph. Elliot separates the two with a comma, which is reasonable given the shortness of the abstract. He categorically does not for example "...cover the 50 Peppercorn Class A1s" or anything that would be unambiguous. Indeed, I would expect Elliot's lecture to consist of two parts; the first part covering the 49 original engines, and the second part the replica. This is exactly how it should be done because it is the only logical way of dealing with it.

MacNee's assertion that the IMechE would, if they disagreed with Tornado being the "fiftieth A1" issue a note saying so is clearly absurd. I expect that the IMechE's committees have far better things to do than to look into such matters and quarrel over an issue of history with one of its speakers who has been invited to talk about engineering.

If MacNee has any further sources available for examination then I will deal with those as well. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant copy of The Railway Magazine, to which he refers.

MacNee's secondary points

I will now deal with MacNee's secondary points:

• MacNee's point that the reader won't miss that 60163 exists as a new build if it is listed with the originals is not really a point at all. Clearly, if they are separated, the reader will still realise that Tornado exists because he (or she) is told in the lead and it is further explained, chronologically, further down the article, and further elaborated upon in a separate article. So I don't understand that argument at all.
• MacNee's accusation that this structuring is "original research" is stretching that definition to its limits. I can back up structuring the article appropriately with sources. MacNee apparently cannot produce a complete list including Tornado.

Captain Nemo III's point

The impression I get from comments by Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs) is as follows: Apparently he thinks that history - the study of the past - is not relevant to events which happened in the past. I think he basically thinks what actually happened in the past is not relevant as our "perception" of events changes as we move forward in history.

I think this is absurd. Wikipedia should be straightforwardly reporting events that occurred historically (and they are really quite straightforward in this case, which means that any new research isn't going to change our perception a great deal), not any particular viewpoint or perception of such events. Apparently he thinks that this is a misrepresentation of his views. I have tried my best to summarise them here but because I think they are nonsensical, I don't think can really explain them properly.

Instead of trying to discuss content, he has tried to have this page deleted as an "attack page", despite the fact that it clearly concentrates mostly on content. He has also tried to edit this page, which is in my userspace and contrary to my request for him not to do so. I do not want this page to turn into a tit-for-tat discussion - it is intended as an essay. He has shown himself quite able, as I requested, to leave comments at user talk:Tony May/A1. I promise if such comments clarify his views, I will take them into consideration and address them properly in this essay.

Behaviour of others

So far I have mostly restricted myself to arguing on the basis of content. However, to this I would like to add the following. I'm sorry to make such accusations, but I do so based on experience of dealing with them. I do not feel that MacNee will be genuinely offended by them, though they may anger him enough to accuse others, of being rude.

MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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). He seems to think that negotiation and discussion revolve around him having to have the last word. When he can't discuss actual content, he either whinges about being "personally attacked", or disingenously tries to raise irrelevant side issues. Furthermore, he has form for being tempestuous, having been blocked 13 times for variations ranging from 3RR to incivility and swearing.

Captain Nemo III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) meanwhile arrived on the scene in support of MacNee. I cannot find any edits of his to railway articles, and very few in general, which makes his interest in this one curious. I note that on 4 April 2008 Captain Nemo III was blocked indefinitely by JzG (talk · contribs), the reason given was Contributions indicate agenda-driven editor (aka "SCOX troll). He was unblocked 20 hours later by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs), who thought the block somewhat excessive. I have no opinion on the rights or wrongs of this block. However, it certainly does not mean that he should pursue a vendetta against JzG (talk · contribs). Their confrontation was a long time in the past and any vendetta WP:POINT. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case however, and one should always assume good faith.

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 (though in claiming to be reasonably well read, I'd hate to think I was patronising anyone, I wish to merely offering a humble opinion based on experience). 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.

Rather than addressing the points in this essay, or attempting to explain himself further, MacNee has dismissed this essay because he claims it keeps changing. My main points however have not changed, indeed if anything I have softened my position slightly.

I will also say FWIW that MacNee has (I think) written much (if not most) of LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado, and on that he has done a reasonable job there (though like many Wikipedia articles though its structure is a bit of a mess). 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)

Other users in agreement

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)

Arbitrary section break 1

Biscuittin, please stop making these continual slurs that I am merely wikilawyering. I am applying the relevant policies, that is what we do here. You are asserting things that are simply not true - to repeat, the fact two editors disagree on a talk page is categorically not classed as evidence of a controversy as it is defined for the purposes of the NPOV policy. If you think I am lying, there are many venues where you can go to get clarification on this very basic point. MickMacNee (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your view of what this article should be is a personal view. You have no more moral right to make this happen than anybody else has to disagree with you. Your version is opposed, and with some solid reasons for doing so. Your total disregard of this Rfc by making a reversion to your "better version" while it is ongoing is more damning of your attitude to wikipedia than anything else you have done so far. I realy do think that you are heading for a block purely on behavioural grounds (do not be mistaken that thinking, or even being, 'right' lends you any protection from having your ability to express your opinion forcibly removed from the process), and that is even with ignoring the accusations you post at the end.

Anyway, to (largely repeat previous points):

Your points on article flow/storytelling etc etc is pure conjecture, it has been rejected by other editors. Your split/lump point is largely irrelevant, the only thing you seek to split is the table entry. Do not try to pretend that the article is confusingly mixing article prose about old/new. The article is very clear on what was original and what is new. Your use of the A1 website to point out what is not even disputed, that there were 49 originals, was already addressed above. It brings nothing to the issue.

Your historians approach comment is not only a thinly veiled personal attack, it is also irrelevant. This was a unique project, the books about it have not even been written yet (and would still be subordinate and not superior with respect to any contrary editor opinion about content style). This locomotive never was an original, neither is it a replica or a restoration of an original. It is a brand new vehicle, and a Peppercorn A1. This is an opinion backed by sources (do 'professional railway historians' not write for magazines by the way?). That it was never a BR engine is not important given these basic facts, which are reflected with utmost clarity in the article. I have not claimed the provided sources in this respect are 'proof' of anything. What they are, is more relevant to the article than your personal likes/dislikes/wants/don't wants, or what you perceive as being 'professional'.

As for your comments about engineering, I am not even sure what you think they assert. Perhaps with all your eminent reading, you have glossed over the simple fact that many classes featured chronological design changes without ever changing the top classification. But this goes back to the central point here, had any actual source contended this was not an A1 but an A1X, or the A1 Trust itelf had made a new classification, then I would add it. I am not here to stamp the article with my opinion, whatever you seem to think you have proved about misquotations (nothing that I can actualy see). I am not here to theorise, and patronise the reader, who know full well that Arthur Peppercorn/British Rail/LNER are not exactly in a position to ratify any position the A1 Trust have taken. Finally on engineering, if you don't see the irony in one of the sources for Tornado being the 50th A1 actually being the IMechE, then I think that's just unintentionally hilarious on your part.

And you seem to want to invoke the example of what also happens in wikipedia itself. This is irrelevant. Firstly as already said, this is a unique situation. You are not comparing like for like, when for example an ex-operational locomotive is restored. Secondly, using other articles to support anything is a pointless exercise, it is not reliable or predictable. The only way this could be relevant is if there was an applicable wikipedia style guide. Having checked a long time ago to be sure I was not insulting other wikipedians by asserting my preferred approach over a past consensus, I know for a fact there is no relevant guide. So with that in mind, this ranks as possibly the least important factor in this dispute.

Now to address the only new point you have made, about the LNER encyclopoedia. Yes, it looks quite good. Does it have an accepted standing on wikipedia as being anything more than a website maintained by a single individual? (compared to say, sources in the article of standing such as the Railway Magazine?) If it does not, then sorry, you have no claim at all to apply whatever style decisions it takes over editors here.

You are correct, you are largely repeating yourself. As you have made no further points, and dismissed mine with simple handwaving, I see little reason in providing a response. The accusations you make of me, apply to yourself far more. How about waiting for others to read comments before demaning the last (and it seems the only) word? You have had your space to have your say and now you must have the last word where I explain mine. Tony May (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I will actually address the IMechE source because again you are reading a whole layer of interpretation into a very short sentence. What we have is not the lecture itself of course, but a very short (3 sentence) abstract. Indeed, I would not be surprised at all if the lecture took the format of two halves, the first on the 49 Peppercorn A1s and the second half on the replica. But again you are reading far too much into it to support what is your opinion. Tony May (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what false conclusions in the article have been asserted from the accurately quoted description? I think half the problem is, you are not even aware that the article does not say half the things you seem to think it does. Does it actually say it entered BR stock? No. Does it say BR issued it its number? No. Does it say the locomotive was classified by the LNER? No. It says what the sources support. Why don't you go to the lecture and ask their view of why they are clearly mistaken, or why it was not called an A1/X, or how it can be the 50th anything when there are only 49 based on the end customer and not the designation. Then, instead of using a crystal ball to support your edits based on what you are sure will happen, you might actually have something concrete to add to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are getting closer to the issue that this is about a way of dealing with the issue and not all this "original research" nonsense. I have already explained at length the best way of dealing with it. --Tony May (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to believe any assessment of what you think is "nonsense". You have in the last few minutes made two reverts at two different pages, citing vandalism. If you can get the definition of this basic term on wikipedia wrong, then it is also likely you can do the same for commonly used terms such as original research, synthesis, unverified claims and crystal balling. MickMacNee (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and removing valid content, and replacing it with a version that is at least a week out of date because it reflects your opinion. I apologise for being angered by your behaviour, I realise your edits are being made in good faith, but they are nevertheless nonsense and violate WP:OWN. Tony May (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Valid content"? "Out of Date"? For a start, your only claim to validity is that it meets your definition of right, and what as yet unpublished books would say. And, unless this page is documenting real time information, "out of date" is just as meaningless. I do not want to repeat your already extensive and repetitive childish behaviour on this page of returning every accusation in kind with not a single shred of evidence, but why don't you actually read what WP:OWN says, and then examine your own actions here, and acknowledge that three editors have expressed the opinion that you are wrong.

And where you have again displayed your total lack of understanduing of wikipedia conventions, you have retrospectively modified your existing comments above after they were replied to. As part of this modification, you introduced a claim that I "removed valid information that I have added to the article" ..."for no reason". Well, you do not get away without making such comments without providing the evidence, so please do that or retract it. And as above, a demonstration of validity does not come from your own mouth alone. I have just about had it with your multiple unsubstantiated comments on this page. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of my points, and not just reverting back to your version. The dispute is now reduced to some wording and one line in a table. I apologise for any mistakes I am making. I am editing my original comments to reflect any points you make, as I would prefer that to getting into a "who talks last wins"-style "debate" with you. Tony May (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alleged slur

Mr MacNee, I am not accusing you of lying. Do you understand the difference between the letter of the law (which is what you advocate) and the spirit of the law (which is what I advocate)? If no other editors intervene soon, I shall make a further request for formal mediation. Biscuittin (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea considering we are going round in circles.Tony May (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:WJBscribe#LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1. Biscuittin (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/LNER Peppercorn Class A1. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuittin, you have opened two different mediations, one with the Mediation Cabal here (which is what the talk page banner above links to), and one with the Mediation Committee, here, which you notified me of on my talk page. The Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee are two different things, with the cabal typpe usually occurring before the committee type. Whichever one you choose to pursue, you should also be aware they may purely be declined on the basis that Rfcs can be left open for 30 days. This one has run for 3 days so far.

But I will categorically not continue with mediation in good faith while Tony May games 3RR (watch for the timing of his next revert after he was warned for 3RR last), or labels his reverts as countering "vandalism" (and please don't dispute the definition of vandalism or accuse me again of lawyering for pointing it out, because the correct labeling of vandalism is again one of the basic aspects of wikipedia, flagrant abuse of which is blockable). I have demonstrated more than enough good faith by not pressing harder or earlier for behavioural blocks of Tony, or by not just ignoring this page completely. If he is actually willing to progress, then instead of empty promises, the most basic gesture will be his not reverting the page without consensus. He already has little of that, with 3 opinions proveably opposing his personal preference. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in any further discussion with you, Mr MacNee. I shall await the outcome of the mediation. Biscuittin (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think mediation is a good idea as a first step, and I urge all users to consider taking a deep breath, stepping back and negotiating properly. Tony May (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to negotiate. You are flat out uncivil, deceptive and disruptive. You do not answer the most basic points. You make false representations of your intentions (this comment [8] followed immediately by this revert [9]). You frequently make replies that do not even address the previous post [10] (usually when a point has been backed by a policy or basic wikipedia convention), or are just completely vague and/or incivil [11][12]. You alter past posts to change their meaning, after they have been answered in their original form[13], or even worse, change the version of comments that appear to then be endorsed by others [14]. I would warn anybody reading this page it has been altered. I am certainly not going to audit it to see what you have changed (read WP:TALK sometime, it is another basic wikipedia policy that explains things for you). You claim a right to edit a page to a certain layout simply based on considering yourself knowledgable on a subject, (yet you cannot produce any third party verification for anything you ever say, relying on using pages from the very organisation you want to discredit to prove something not even in question on the article [15]), all supported with liberal patronisation (This is the most logical way of doing it. Have you actually read any books on railway history?) and irrelevance (no, I have funnily enough never read a historical paper account with details of a locomotive built in 2008). What I have read is the supposedly illogical works of the Railway Magazine, the pointing out of which is glossed over, or just plain ignored, ("you have made no further points"). Not satisifed with patronising me with your superior attitude (and I could have some real payback here if I ever chose to reveal my real life profession), you do it pre-emptively to newcomers to this discussion also (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) who might not appreciate the complicated issues you seem to think need explaining such as why a locomotive can't be delivered to a long extinct company [16], (which the article does not even assert [17] anyway). You claim you are merely doing what is standard on wikipedia (which means nothing in the absence of any style guide and the inherent principle of fluidity of articles) and when that fact is pointed out you embark on edits elsewhere as you do here, changing articles so they appear as you want them to [18], arguably violating WP:POINT. You do not understand basic wikipedia concepts such as original research. I have yet to find an addition of yours in here or elsewhere that was actually attributed to a source. Maybe this isn't needed when you just believe you are inherently right. You fail to answer a simple request to provide proof of an accusation of removal of content for no reason. You falsely label reverts as vandalism reversion [19] and copyediting [20], without even the defence of not having been told these do not qualify as either, dismissing valid warnings as vandalism [21] and gaming 3RR, and going against consensus (myself, MilborneOne and AndrewHouse to enforce a "better version". Again, appearing quite deliberate you actively ignore the presence of these other opinions despite having been mentioned many times [22]). I gave you one last chance to show you were acting in good faith above, you ignored it. So, all in all, why should anybody negotiate with you about anything? MickMacNee (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion to content rather than behaviour, because if you try to make it about behaviour you hardly come out of it well at all. I have made all my points above regarding content. You have not provided an adequate response - could you please try to do this? Tony May (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Please try to keep the discussion to content" and then "have not provided an adequate response". You are unbelievable. I am not obliged to try to continue to try and satisfy you, when you refuse to acknowledge replies and ignore basic points. I have adequately responded to any content issues you think you have raised many times already, I am now merely protecting the consensus demonstrated for the content of this page, against changes wrongly described as copyedits. If you disagree with that, the procedures for you to follow are and always were, very clear. Willfull ignorance, deception, misdirection and edit warring, are not, and never were, acceptable as 'discussion of content'. So there is nothing more to discuss regarding content in the manner you think this is supposed to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is why we are going for mediation. I am willing to be reasonable, make my points and consider yours. You are apparently not willing to give me that courtesy. I apologise for any misunderstandings and getting angry at your absurdities. Tony May (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You want to talk about absurdities? You just added an accuracy tag, with the edit summary 60163 was *never* a BR engine - so why is it in the stocklist?. The current version of the article does not even have a BR stock list, it has a list of locomotives. The current version of the article does not even say it was ever a BR engine. The only person who wants to make that list a BR stock list is you, against consensus. You have been asked to provide a single source or consensus view that on wikipedia a list of locomotives on a class page must correspond to a stock list without exception, you have failed. (Sure, you have shown that some people, including the source you also want to ignore, when listing the original 49 BR locomotives, shock horror, actually list the original locomotives. This fact does not actually support your rationale for converting this article list into a stock list of the original 49). You tell me where the current version of the article asserts Tornado was one of the original 49 locomotives? So, other than your insistence of needing to list original BR engines together to the exclusion of any other, you have failed to provide any source that refutes the classification of Tornado as a new build next in class Peppercorn A1, and thus the representation of it in the article as such. You have cited your 'knowledgable opinion', and cited other wikipedia articles you have edited to your personal view, but otherwise, to any accepted wikipedia standard, you have failed. You have attempted to change the article form its original version long ago to make it appear that your view is correct, supporting it with unencyclopoedic 'qualifications' and 'explanations' that are otherwise self evident to the expert/unnecessarily technical for the layman (the very term 'stock list' being a perfect case in point). The absurdity comes from your personal idea of what wikipedia should be, not what it is universally accepted that it is: an encyclopoedia whose style and content is set by consensus, supported by outside sources, not a paper based historical work beholden to any outside manual of style. If you feel really passionate about this, your true goal should be to edit the actual Wikipedia manual of style for train articles (it can be found here by the way), and see if your personal opinion gains consensus. But this will still be rather pointless, as the case for this article is pretty much unique (despite your unsourced opinion that it is just another 'preservation section' replica). Again, if you want to start making policy for these cases, as there are several shades of grey emerging in the 10 or so current 'new build' projects, again, the RMOS is the venue you should be at. After continual opposition to your view here, your edits are now merely disruptive to make a point, and should have seen your privelage to make any edits removed long ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer, the above discussion is fascinating. For what it's worth, I do not believe that Tornado can be considered anything other than a replica, and therefore not a part of the original series of engines. For starters it was built at a different time and using greatly different techniques. More importantly, the people that built the original and the replica are a generation apart. Using the car as a comparison, it is like comparing a original to a kit-car. The similarity betweent them starts and ends in the appearance. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)