This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options. Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Zukas has challenged the veracity of the article and claims that it is full of mistakes. He has repeatedly reverted to his preferred version, which also makes numerous stylistic changes. It's difficult to read through these diffs. He adds no sources of his own, has added unsourced content, and sometimes removes sources. I and another editor have asked him to make more incremental edits, flagging inaccurate information, but he has not done so. Zukas also sometimes edits from an IP and not his regular account; I do not think this is deliberate but it has aggravated the situation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This has been discussed extensively on the talk page but we seem to be talking past each other.
How do you think we can help?
I'd like someone not involved to look over the dispute and give their opinion on it. I'm getting worn out arguing. This article isn't highly-trafficked and some fresh perspective would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by Centpacrr
Both Mackensen (who created the article last summer) and I have been repeatedly restoring massive deletions of existing detailed, well sourced material and citations that had been originally developed and contributed by us after the material has been repeatedly deleted without explanation by user Tim Zukas under both his registered user account and multiple sockpuppet IP addresses. (All of the IPs geolocate to Oakland, CA, the Berkeley Public Library, and the University of California (Berkeley) of which Zukas is listed as a small financial contributor to the Bancroft Library.) This follows a pattern which Zukas has used to make similar disruptive edits to many other transportation related articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways using multiple IPs, and other articles using his registered account. In all cases (including the "Overland Limited" article), the deletions made by this user have violated WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS. This user has a long demonstrated history over a period of several years of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which is revealed by multiple warnings and complaints posted by many other editors in his talk page. Multiple requests made of him in talk pages of this and other articles that he cooperate with his fellow editors in resolving such issues are virtually always ignored. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As user "Zukas" has chosen to ignore this process and once again massively altered the article without explanation, I have decided to delete all the images, new text, references, sources and citations that I have added over the past several weeks and revert it to the status quo ante rather than waste anymore of my time dealing with a blindly disruptive editor who has no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue raised by both Mackensen (who opened this discussion) and myself is that despite repeated requests, user "Zukas" (both under his registered account and anon IP's) both refuses to specify what he claims are "errors", and refuses to provide or cite any sources -- reliable, verifiable, published, or otherwise -- to support any of the changes he makes. This is a well established pattern with this user (i.e. unexplained mass deletions of material, references, and citations and replacing it with new material without any references or citations) dating back to at least 2010 which is revealed both in postings on his talk page by other editors of similar complaints and warnings, and his activities in articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways to which he has made similar massive edits using only multiple IP sockpuppets without providing any support therefore and leading to those pages having to be protected multiple times to prevent his continued disruptive editing of them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Tim Zukas
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"detailed, well sourced material"
But nonetheless wrong. Hard to tell whether to blame the source or his misreading of it; his discussion of the 1905 move to the Milwaukee Road is plainly a misreading of Beebe, who seems to have reported the matter carefully.
"no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community"
I remove errors and he replaces them, saying I haven't explained. Naturally I figure the guy adding the errors is the one who's supposed to explain; anyone who looks the discussion over can see how much "explaining" he has done.
The article's first paragraph is an example. In his version the Overland ran SF Bay Area to Omaha until 1962. Looking at the timetables, we see that in reality the Overland quit running east of Ogden/Green River in 1956; none of its cars continued east to Omaha after that. UP train 27/28 that confused him wasn't the Overland (it had the same number, but nothing else) and ran Laramie-Omaha until 1967-68. Too much detail to go in the article's first paragraph, so it appears later. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. All parties have now been properly notified, and there appears to be sufficient discussion, so we're waiting for a volunteer to take the case. Please note that if a volunteer does take the case that only content, not conduct, will be discussed; if you wish to deal with conduct matters you need to file at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are any objections I'd be happy to serve as that volunteer. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'll proceed under the expectation that there will be no objections. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for Discussion - I am a DRN volunteer moderator and I'll start things out by thanking the three of you for agreeing to engage in a moderated discussion. Clear communication is essential at Wikipedia and I ask you all to check in on the discussion regularly in order to ensure its success. With a little luck we should be able to resolve this relatively quickly. Please note that I am not an administrator and that this is not a formal or binding discussion. The hope is that we can arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. I've reviewed the case materials and your opening statements and I would first echo TransporterMan's note regarding the function of DRN. We will only be addressing content issues in this discussion. To that end I'd ask that all participants avoid personally-directed comments as much as possible.
Let us begin with the specific content claims at the heart of the dispute. Tim Zukas has made it clear that he believes there are numerous errors in the article. Mackensen and Centpacrr seem to be saying that the claims in the article are generally supported by appropriate sources. I suggest that we work on the facts before moving on to aesthetic issues like the length of the lede. We will need concrete claims to work with and I can already see a number of them have been brought up here or on the article talk page, but it seems that some of the disagreements over the claims have been settled so there's no need for us to re-examine these. My first question I direct to Tim Zukas: What are the specific claims that you believe still contain errors? If you could briefly list them then we'll be able to go through them one by one to assess whether they are supported by any of the sources. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mackensen, @Centpacrr, and @Tim Zukas: I probably should have pinged you all yesterday to notify you that this dispute resolution has been opened. I apologize for that. Tim Zukas, when you get a free moment please try to address the question I posed in my last post. We need to establish the scope of the problem before we can tackle the individual claims.
It's essential that we work together to settle this issue collaboratively. Nothing good will come from editing back and forth in articlespace while this discussion is still ongoing. I ask all parties to keep the bigger picture in mind. Of course it's annoying to have the article sitting in a state that doesn't reflect the best version, but remember that no version of an article is ever considered the final version. The article's history page contains snapshots of every version of the article that has existed previously so we will always be able to restore any former version after we have come to agree on the content. As I see it the substantive issues are relatively non-complex and if we work through the DRN process together we should be able to resolve the content concerns relatively quickly and painlessly. With this in mind I ask that all participants please resist the temptation to edit the article while this discussion is ongoing even if you believe the edit is an improvement. -Thibbs (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with the first paragraph-- their version says "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran from 1887 until 1963." Dunno what their books say, but UP timetables show that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955-56. No train called "Overland" ran east of Ogden/Green River after 1956.
Moving down to History, their version says "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs. Lucius Beebe contends ..." Lucius Beebe didn't contend anything-- he wrote that the train used the Milwaukee for an unknown length of time starting in 1905, and he speculated that perhaps UP was pressuring CNW, but he made clear the latter was only a guess based on no info.
Continuing in History, their version is "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..." Think it was still "San Francisco Overland" on UP-- I'll check. I guess they mean year-round operation ended in July 1962; far as anyone knows the train was daily in summer 1962, around Christmas 1962, and in summer 1963.
In the Name section, their version is "The Union Pacific officially dropped "Limited" from the name in 1947. Other names used included the San Francisco Overland and San Francisco Overland Limited." My version is "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when "Limited" was dropped" {by UP and SP and CNW, that is]. Assuming my version is correct (dunno if they think it isn't), any reason to like theirs better?
Equipment section-- they say "In 1941–42 the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars..." What they meant to say was "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers along with its heavyweight cars." Tim Zukas (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: I've numbered the problematic lines so that we can have a point of reference in discussing them -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I'd consider it a gesture of good faith if Tim Zukas stopped removing the {{Reflist}} template in his mass reverts. This edit addresses far more than these two points. Now, to address these individual issues, the lede is written as a summary. In general, this article is about a train which for most of its life operated between Chicago and the Bay. The details described by Zukas are described in the "History" section. As I said on the talk page, and as he knows because he participated in that thread, no one thinks the train operated to Chicago after 1955. I don't understand the complaint regarding Beebe's contention. He reported a fact, and then speculated on its meaning. Contend means "assert something as a position in an argument." Mackensen(talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen, all parties are requested to cease editing the article temporarily as a gesture of good faith. While there hasn't been a violation of 3RR, you and Tim Zukas are both close to edit warring and since this is clearly not a case of reverting obvious vandalism you are both putting yourselves in needless risk of trouble. -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beebe states in his book Overland Limited at page 31: "In any event, by 1907The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...".
The scion daily service (TR27/28) ended scheduled year-round operation in July, 1962 when the ICC approved its cancellation. Continued seasonal operation that summer and over the Christmas/New Year holidays through January 2, 1963 did not constitute a continuation of "year-round" daily operation, nor did any appearance of 27/28 in employee's (but not public) timetables for any portion of 1963. (Those 1963 "runs" were also annulled by daily train orders.)
Again user Zukas still does not provide ANY citation to any sources (author, title, date, publisher, page number(s), etc) to support his version. Centpacrr (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point #1
Resolved: Agreement on wording of the lead
Regarding point #1: It seems that we are in agreement about the facts (i.e. that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955). If so then it becomes a question of presentation. Tim Zukas seems to be saying that the lede is misleading because it doesn't make it clear that the description of the train as running "between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area" only pertains to the period 1887 through 1955. Mackensen points out that this information is contained in the history section and that the lead is supposed to function as a summary. Indeed according to the MOS, the lead paragraph should be concise and summary in nature. So expanding the lead with further detailed explanation is not necessarily a good thing. Keeping in mind both clarity and concise summary, I wonder if it would be possible to say "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroadpassenger train on the Overland Route. It ran from 1887 until 1963." This would load the geographical description into the term "Overland Route" which is blue-linked and which can serve as a means for readers to discover the full history of the changes on the route over time. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's customary to mention geographic locale with train routes. Our readers won't know what the Overland Route is. Saying that the Overland Limited was a train which ran between Chicago and the Bay Area is an accurate summary and I would prefer to mention the endpoints. How about this:
This tightens up some of the language about the name and routes east of Omaha. Mackensen(talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to swap the "For most of its history..." sentence with the "It began in 1887 and ended in 1963" sentence. But it seems to me that this does clear up the issue. Thank you for the suggestion, Mackensen. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Would that work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area from 1887 until 1955. For most of its life it ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Mackensen? Does anything problematic jump out? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's a little confusing to say it was a train until 1955, but that a leg lasted until 1963. A truncated version of a train is still a train. Mackensen(talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like this: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route from 1887 until 1963. For most of its history it ran between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific Railroad west of Ogden. Although operations between Chicago and the Bay Area were suspended in 1955, the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." -Thibbs (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved OK I think this first point is resolved then. I'll collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point #2
Resolved: Consensus to exclude Beebe's claim which conflicts with the January 1910 Official Guide.
Regarding point #2: I think what we need to see at this point is a copy of the claimed source (i.e. Beebe pg. 31). If you have the Beebe source, Centpacrr, would you mind making a copy available for us? -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The relevant text from Beebe's Overland Limited reads at page 30: "For a period lasting, as far as can be ascertained, from 1905 to 1907 it made its entry to Chicago as Trains Nos. 1 and 2, The Overland Limited, of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway." and at page 31: "In any event, by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...". Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, can you clarify your concern with this claim? I'm unsure whether you are contesting Beebe's alleged contention (i.e. "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure...") or whether you are contesting the phrase "used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs". -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Milwaukee Road still shows a train called the Overland Limited between Chicago and Omaha in its section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides. Beebe didn't claim to know when the train ran on the Milwaukee and didn't claim to know why it did; the article shouldn't say he claimed to know.Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK so you are contesting the portion describing Beebe's contention as "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure". In fact I don't see that claim directly supported in the sections you quoted, Centpacrr. Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim? In the meanwhile Tim Zukas, could you give us a link to your source (i.e. the Milwaukee Road's section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides)? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim?" No.
Maybe the Guides are online somewhere, but I was just referring to the ones on paper. He has now found it in the 1910 Guide reprint, so that takes care of that?
Truth to tell, there's no evidence that the "official" Overland Limited ever ran on the Milwaukee with some sort of secondary version on the CNW. Far as we know the Overland always ran on the CNW until 1955, and for some unknown number of years the Milwaukee ran a train called the Overland Limited that carried at least one car that continued west of Omaha on UP's Overland. No indication that the Overland west of Omaha was ever more Milwaukee Road cars than CNW cars. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation as to why the Milwaukee Road provided service from 1905 to 1907 was not made by me. The citation I made to Beebe was in support of the period of time (two years starting in 1905) that the service was provided to the Overland Limited east of Council Bluffs by that road. Centpacrr (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that claim (supported by Beebe p31) was originally added by Mackensen back in August 2014. It would still be courteous of Tim Zukas to provide contrary evidence, but per WP:BURDEN we will need to locate direct support for the claim now that it has been challenged. What are your thoughts on this, Mackensen? Would you object to altering the text covering Beebe's contention "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure"? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different issues here: when the Overland ran on the Milwaukee and why a second section also ran on the CNW. Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above. However, I've consulted the January 1910 Official Guide and Tim Zukas is correct. Whenever the Milwaukee Road stopped carrying the Overland it wasn't 1907. He is uncertain, and says so, about the reasons for running on the CNW: "Whether this was a result of an effort on the part of the Union Pacific to split its business between two connecting carriers or, as seems equally likely, a temporary feint to secure more advantageous relations with the North Western is not available to solution at this remove." Mackensen(talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above."
Anyone who thinks Beebe was emphatic about the dates only has to read the quote to learn better. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beg pardon, but Beebe saying "by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard" has a note of finality to it, does it not? In any event he appears to be wrong in this case. Mackensen(talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Beebe's claims conflict with the January 1910 Official Guide and you both agree that the January 1910 Official Guide source is correct then I see two options. We could either A) leave the claim about Beebe's contention (which is supported by the Beebe source even if the substance of the contention is in fact incorrect) or we could B) come to a consensus to exclude Beebe's contention. If we leave the contention intact then we will need appropriate attribution so that it's not written in Wikipedia's voice, and we would need to present the contrary evidence. In fact it seems to be appropriately attributed currently as it says "Lucius Beebe contends...". If the contrary evidence (from the January 1910 Official Guide) was presented, would that solve the problem, Tim Zukas? Alternately, since Beebe appears to be wrong in this case what would you think of omitting this claim, Mackensen? Is it generally helpful to the article? -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some confusion here. Beebe's "contention" (as I paraphrased) is about the reason for using the CNW. Beebe states as fact, not contention, that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907. He's wrong about that. The reason for the sections on both roads is unknown, hence Beebe published a guess and stated as much. I don't understand the continued conflation of two separate issues. Mackensen(talk) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. In that case the line "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs." which is written in Wikipedia's voice needs proper attribution to Beebe (e.g. "Beebe suggests that between 1905–1907... however entries in the 1909 and 1910 Official Guide show continued Overland Limited runs between Chicago and Omaha for a few years after.") or it should be removed by consensus. Any preference? -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Milw section of the January 1905 Guide shows a sleeper Chicago to SF-- nothing else goes thru on the Overland Ltd. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Given that there seems to be agreement over the fact that Beebe is wrong that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, should we retain Beebe's statement with attribution (e.g. "Beebe states that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, however other sources show...") or should we just remove/alter the statement? Do either of you have a preference? -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best plan is to quit saying the Overland Ltd switched from CNW to MILW in 1905. The article should mention the train that the Milwaukee Road called "Overland Limited" for a few years (that carried at least one car to/from California) but it shouldn't say the CNW's "Overland Ltd" wasn't the real "Overland Ltd" during that time. The Guides don't say that.
By the way: the 1/04 Guide also shows the Milwaukee's so-called Overland Ltd. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this up to Mackensen as the article's OP to decide, but that is not what Beebe says which is the only specific source that anyone has cited so far. On another topic I have today just acquired a copy of Robert Wayner's massive 1972 tome Car Names, Numbers and Consists which details all the streamlined and light-weight intercity passenger cars and consists built and operated in the US from the 1930's to 1972 and also have on order (which I should receive by this weekend) Mike Schafer's 1997 Classic American Streamliners both of which may well be useful in resolving other issues. Centpacrr (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #4). -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to omit any mention of a pre-1955 handling of the train by the Milwaukee Road. Mackensen(talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved OK, sounds good. I think this second point is now resolved. I'll again collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point #3
Regarding point #3: If I understand properly it sounds like Tim Zukas and Centpacrr are essentially in agreement over the claim that July 1962 marked the end of year-round operations and that temporary runs may have been available at some times during the remainder of 1962 and possibly in 1963. Is that correct? If so then I think we've again reached the point of discussing the presentation of the claims. Perhaps it would work to just insert the phrase "Year-round" like so: "Year-round daily operation ended on July 16, 1962." Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given Centpacrr's comment below, I reviewed an older version of the article and noticed that this suggested compromise has previously been part of the article. (i.e. in the line: "The death knell ... of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962"). Did you have an objection to that phrasing, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beebe states at page 51 of The Overland Limited: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through train to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at seasonal traffic peaks in June and December. The St. Louis cars became incorporated in The City of San Francisco and The Overland disappeared from The Official Railroad Guide save between June 22 and Labor Day and December 22 and January 2." Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that this is what Centpacrr had paraphrased (in this older version of the article) as "While the train continued to run 'seasonal' service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year,..." This seems to be supported by Beebe. Does the text sound reasonable, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That version is "While the train continued to run "seasonal" service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year, the last remnant of what had begun as The Overland Flyer in 1887 was over and did not appear in the public timetables of the UP or SP again after its last holiday run on January 2, 1963." Apparently none of us has a 1963 SP public timetable, so no one knows where he got that idea; the San Francisco Overland is still shown as a daily train under that name in the April 1963 and September 1963 SP employee timetables.
Which doesn't mean it ran in April 1963-- far as we know Beebe was right that the Overland was to resume on 14 June 1963; the 10/62 Guide says that too. That's what Phelps was talking about when he said the Overland was annulled by train order day by day-- he meant before 14 June and after 2 Sept 1963. Far as anyone knows the train was daily during the summer. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This line is in the main body of the article rather than the lead so summary prose is not needed. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem simply by adding more explanation (e.g. by adding Phelps' comments regarding day-by-day annulment. Would that work? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure at this point what to make of the remainder of the paragraph that gets into details about when these smaller "runs" took place, but it seems that Tim Zukas has some source material in mind to bolster this. I notice that in this edit, for example, Tim Zukas cites "Cooper" and "Signor". Does "Cooper" refer to Bruce Clement Cooper's "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes"? What does "Signor" refer to? If these details are contested then we will have to compare sources, but if there is agreement on the facts then we can talk about the presentational aspects. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Cooper" is my own massive 2010 book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" which is Volume 1 of a three-volume set I did published between March, 2010 and May, 2011 on the classic 19th and early 20th railroad routes in the United States and Canada (I am Bruce Clement Cooper), and "Signor" is John R. Signor's 1985 book "DONNER PASS: Southern Pacific's Sierra Crossing". I cited these (and several other) sources to support detail that I had added earlier. I later removed them when I deleted all of my contributions (including four illustrations: the cover of an 1869 issue of The Overland Monthly, the cover of "A Souvenir of The Overland Limited" published by the UP in 1897, a 1908 route map, and a SP 1945 public timetable) to the article in frustration because user Zukas kept altering or removing my contributions without any explanation (i.e., no or only misleading edit summaries) or providing any citations of his own to other sources to support any of his changes despite continued requests that he do so. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well that's encouraging to me because it suggests that there is agreement on reliability of the sources and perhaps even the factual details within. Is that a fair assessment? Regarding the content that Centpacrr removed did Tim Zukas challenge its inclusion or was its removal just a way to restore the article to a neutral state? Is there any plan to restore it at a later point? If that material contains challenged claims then we should address them here before restoring the material. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly there is no way of knowing what user Zukas is "challenging" as his massive revisions were all made either without any explanation (no edit summary) or an unspecified claim of "correcting errors" without either saying what those alleged "errors" are, or providing citations to any sources supporting his claims. As noted above, this has also been his practice in a large number of other transportation articles (mostly aviation related) that I and others have contributed to in the past. That being the case it became clear to me that no matter what I (or Mackensen, who is also this article's OP) contributed, user Zukas would continue to wipe them out without explanation or providing supporting sources. I therefore decided that under these circumstances it was no longer worth my time to try to improve this article and so removed all my contributions (text, illustrations, sources, and citations) and returned it to its status quo ante. Centpacrr (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat their version-- "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..."
Turns out it was still the San Francisco Overland on all three RRs in summer 1955. Hopefully everyone's agreed daily operation didn't end in July 1962? The train ran daily around Christmas 1962 and in summer 1963?
I've never seen Cooper's book. As for when the train finally ended there are three possible sources: the employee timetable, the public timetable, and Al Phelps' info in the appendix of Signor's book Donner Pass. He says it ran thru summer 1963. As for where the train ran at any given time before 1963, my source is the public timetables. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The train did not run as a year-round daily train as it had since its inception after the ICC agreed to cancel that requirement on July 16, 1962. The Phelps listing in Signor at page 276 states: "July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco. After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted. October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963." Seasonal service which ended in the summer of 1963 is not year-round service which ended on July 16, 1962. Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this account that Centpacrr has copied from the Phelps listing in Signor (p276) sound accurate to you in light of the information from your sources, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted" apparently means annulled each day before 14 June 1963 and each day after 2 Sept 1963.
"July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco"-- What Phelps meant to say was the separate schedule for trains 27/28 continued to exist-- it's in the empl timetables thru Sept 1963-- and the separate train continued to run Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and summer 1963. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However on July 16, 1962 it formally discontinued being a "daily, year-round" train (which it had been continuously since its inception) and all future operations until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs. Therefore the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962, not in the summer of 1963 which is when 27/28's seasonal service was discontinued. That is also exactly what Beebe says. Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"future operations [after 16 July 1962] until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs"
We're agreed the non-contiguity started in Sept 1962? Far as we know in 1962 the train ran on 17 July and 18 July and 19 July etc.
"the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962"
It quit being a year-round train-- it didn't quit being a daily train. Seasonal trains like the Orange Blossom Special were shown as "Daily" in the Official Guide during the months they ran. "Daily" means seven days a week-- if you say it's no longer daily, the reader wonders: so what was it-- three days a week or what?
No need to say it was daily, but don't say it wasn't. Just say it was no longer a year-round train. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the non-congruity started on July 17, 1962 when it became "seasonal", non-year-round service for the first time since the inception of the Overland Flyer. The requirement for maintaining year-round service ceased when the ICC authorized its discontinuation as of July 16, 1962. That is the date on which mandated, contiguous year-round Overland service ended and optional non-contiguous seasonal service began. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we clear up the "daily" issue by saying something like this: "...the death knell for the last scion service of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round train came on July 16, 1962. Daily operations would only continue on a seasonal basis after this date."? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept "The death knell for the last scion of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized the discontinuance of that level of service. After that only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." Centpacrr (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article says ICC allowed seasonal operation starting Sept 1962; it says SP "declined to revive" the train in summer 1964. The reader wonders: the ICC had no power over SP in 1964? What changed betw 1962 and 1964?
The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962-- the eastward train started running 15 minutes behind the CoSF rather than ahead of it. Makes me wonder: did the ICC coincidentally issue its ruling the same day? None of us knows, except for what Beebe wrote. None of us knows whether the ICC was even the responsible agency.
If we stick to what we know, we just say "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created by Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379), approved February 4, 1887, specifically to regulate railroads and its authority was expanded to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. The agency was not abolished until 1995 when its functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.
The 1887 Act states in its preamble: "That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid." Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems we're now caught between Centpacrr's "After that [July 16, 1962] only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." and Tim Zukas' "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." It seems to me that the difference between them is purely superficial. The facts are essentially identical and only the wording is different. Are there substantive differences between them that I'm missing? If not, would both of you accept a decision from a neutral third party who we could invite via WP:3O? -Thibbs (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His version makes it sound like the train operated differently in August 1962 than it had in June 1962, which far as we know it didn't.
We can hope the neutral third party won't prefer "only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis" to "it ran summer and Christmas". Tim Zukas (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be OK with a third opinion on the matter, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cited issue Beebe addresses is when the last vestige of the original 1887 Overland make its last run as a "year-round daily" train, and that was on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved the termination of that service. All operations made by TR27/28 after that date were strictly seasonal and even those ended altogether in July, 1963. Centpacrr (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it Tim Zukas is in agreement with that but he wants to use different language to express the same thing in a manner that he believes is clearer to readers. You are entitled to disagree but we're stuck at this point unless you can both agree to abide by the opinion of a neutral third party (WP:3O). I understand Tim Zukas' comment of 22:10, 9 March 2015 as an agreement to this solution. Would you also agree to this solution, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Centpacrr: - We need to move forward with this issue. Two weeks ago (at 10:36 on 8 March 2015), seeing no difference between your preferred version and Tim Zukas' preferred version of the contested line, I asked if there were substantive differences between them. If there are no substantive differences I asked if the two of you would be willing to abide by a neutral third party opinion. Tim Zukas seems to have indicated his willingness to abide by a third party opinion. Is there an actual substantive difference? Would you be willing to abide by a third party opinion? -Thibbs (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both Beebe (p. 41) and Signor (p. 276) confirm that the San Francisco Overland ceased as a year-round daily train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuance and consolidation of service with the City of San Francisco. It only operated then on a seasonal basis for one more year as is also shown by the October 1962 Official Guide of Railways]. Centpacrr (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does that contradict Tim Zukas' preferred version? -Thibbs (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does because his version pablumizes the material by ignoring what the reliable published sources (Beebe, Signor, Official Guide) provide as to the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), the reason therefore (ICC approval of the discontinuance of year-round daily service), and the the consolidation with the City of San Francisco's service. Centpacrr (talk 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your position, Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, would you object to adding some or all of (1) the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), (2) the reason for the change, and (3) the fact of the consolidation with The City of San Francisco's service if Centpacrr can provide the exact language from Beebe, Signor, and the Official Guide that backs up that part of the claim? -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beebe (p. 51}: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through run to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at seasonal traffic peaks in June and December."
Signor (p. 276): "May 31, 1931: Numbers changed to 27 and 28 and becomes San Francisco Overland Limited.
June 19, 1932: Adds coaches to previously all-Pullman consist.
July 10, 1947: Name shortened to S.F. Overland.
July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, theCity of San Francisco.After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted.
October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963. "
Everyone is agreed that as far as we know trains 27-28 ran between Oakland and Ogden on 17 July 1962, and 18 July, and 19 July, and every day after that until 2 September or some such? If so, the article shouldn't suggest otherwise. (By the way: one book says the ICC ruling was 6 July 1962. Too bad none of us knows what became of California PUC's authority over railroads.) Tim Zukas (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you supply NO SOURCES to support what you say here. Beebe and Signor both say that year-round daily service was discontinued on July 16, 1962. After that (including July 17) it was only operated as a seasonal train, service which terminated altogether no later than the summer of 1963. Beebe, Signor, and the October, 1962 Official Guide are all highly reliable sources. "One book says..." (which is not specified) is no "source" at all. Whatever authority the California PUC had would have covered trains that operated only in California which is irrelevant in this case at this SP train service operated in three states -- California, Nevada and Utah. The ICC was a federal agency created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to regulate railroads in all the states and territories. Centpacrr (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If both Beebe and Signor say that services ended on the 16th, then it sounds like Tim Zukas' new source may represent a minority viewpoint. One way to handle this is to present both claims with appropriate attribution. So we could say something like: "Services ended on the 16th,<ref name=Beebe/><ref name=Signor/> however XYZ suggests that services ended as early as the 6th.<ref name=XYZ/>" This is useful no matter what the truth of the situation because regardless of the correct date it is important to address conflicting reliable-source claims to forestall later changes by good faith editors using the other source and to provide a starting point for any reader wishing to investigate the matter independently. I think it makes sense to use the 2x sourced date of the 16th as the date in the article until the new source is identified, but when Tim Zukas locates the source of the July 6th date (and provided that it is of equivalent reliability with Beebe and Signor), then would you be OK with this solution of mentioning both dates, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My (and other many other editors) basic issue with this user is that he makes many claims but never supports them with specific citations to sources ("another book", "time tables", or "guides" is about as close as he ever gets) either in articles or in discussion like this so it is impossible for others to judge or verify his positions. Unless and until he does so, this becomes a fruitless exercise. WP is based on reliable sources and specific citations (author, title, publisher, date, page number, etc), not unsupported claims and speculation. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but let's not pre-judge the situation before Tim Zukas has had a chance to respond. This is not the forum to address behavioral issues anyway. What I'm asking here is whether the two of you would be open to the solution I suggested above if Tim Zukas can furnish an appropriate contrary source. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above is based on several years of frustrating experience with the practices of this user in this and a significant number of other railroad and aviation related articles such as Newark Liberty Airport, Boeing 314, Braniff International Airways, City of San Francisco, etc. If he supplies a citation to an appropriate contrary (or any kind of) reliable source here, it will be a first in my experience with him. There is always hope though, I guess, so let's see what happens. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs suggests "Services ended on the 16th,<ref name=Beebe/><ref name=Signor/> however XYZ suggests that services ended as early as the 6th.<ref name=XYZ/>". Problem is, service didn't end on the 6th or the 16th of July-- that's the date of the alleged ICC ruling. Far as we know the train continued to run Oakland-Ogden daily until early September 1962-- every day in July and every day in August. As it happens none of us has an August 1962 public timetable or Guide to confirm that, but no book says the train didn't run in August 1962.
(Haven't found the book where I recently read the ruling was on 6 July-- but that date is of no particular significance anyway. Beebe says the ICC ruled in July 1962 that the Overland could suspend after that summer, until December, and the article doesn't need to say more than that.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (Fixed ref tag errors. -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Again no citations or sources to support his speculation, and nothing that counters anything in Beebe, Signor, or the October, 1962 Official Guide. And again what all three of those sources (which I have quoted verbatim above) demonstrate is that year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuance and anything after that date was strictly seasonal operations that ended as well in the summer of 1963. That's exactly what my language says (see immediately below), and nothing new has been cited that indicates anything else.
The designation San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Welsh 2008, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWelsh2008 (help) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654]
That's the language that the cited reliable sources support. Centpacrr (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962"
As long as the article makes clear the train continued to run Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962-- daily as far as we know. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true then it seems to be a useful clarification to make. Tim Zukas, do you know of any sources that support the claim that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962? -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962, so SP must have come out with a new public timetable, which none of us has, and none of us has the 8/62 or 9/62 Guide. The 10/62 Guide just gives the begin-end dates for the Overland's Christmas 1962 and summer 1963 ops-- the summer 1963 train was to begin in June and end early Sept. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK then what would you say to just using "year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962" (citing the relevant sections of Beebe and Signor that support this claim) until the contrary sources can be located? -Thibbs (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and around Christmas, but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Then the reader isn't confused about what terminated. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Didn't you just indicate that none of us has a source that supports that claim? Is there a source that supports the claim that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962? -Thibbs (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Zukas" version pablumizes and does not accurately reflect what the three sources support which is: The designation San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round daily train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Welsh 2008, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWelsh2008 (help) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, please stop describing Tim Zukas' proposals as pablum. It is unnecessary and probably unhelpful in reaching common ground. The two versions are not very dissimilar in my view. Your version has more details in some areas and Tim Zukas' has more detail in other areas. From what I can see the details in Centpacrr's version (date of the ICC approval, consolidation with the City of San Francisco, etc.) appear to be bolstered by good sources and I am asking Tim Zukas if there is a specific source that supports the detail in his version that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962. Let's give Tim Zukas a chance to identify a source like that. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing that will prove (pretty much) it did or did not run is the public timetable or Guide. It's still shown as daily in the employee timetable dated 16 July 1962. In any case, no book says it didn't run in August 1962; the 10/62 Guide gives the dates it was to run Christmas season 1962 and starting in June 1963.
I suspect you (Thibbs) are a bit confused by Centpacrr's confused writing. If it were possible to get him to answer yes-or-no to the question "Did the Overland run in August 1962, as far as we know?", he probably would say yes, it did. Probably isn't possible to do that, but if you want to give it a try, good luck. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK there's no reason for you to refer to Centpacrr's proposed text as "confused" either. Let's refocus here: the claims that are used in our article need to be backed up by reliable sources. After that their actual wording should be done in a manner that best explains the topic to the reader. What I am confused about is the fact that you (Tim Zukas) seem to hold that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the entire month of July and throughout all of August 1962. If it is true that (1) the public timetable or Guide are the only sources that can prove this and it's also true that (2) none of us has the timetable or the 8/62 or 9/62 Guide, then I can't understand why you believe that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the entire month of July and throughout all of August 1962. What leads to to believe that this is true? I ask specifically because Centparr's sources (Beebe page 51 and Signor page 276) really seem to bolster the claim that the train's regular service ended on July 16, 1962. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I have said is that after July 16, 1962 the SP "...continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963" which is what all the sources quoted above as a group support. Centpacrr (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"(Beebe page 51 and Signor page 276) really seem to bolster the claim that the train's regular service ended on July 16, 1962."
If "regular" means "year-round". Far as we know the train continued to run after 16 July 1962, presumably until September. Everyone's agreed that in 1963 the Overland was supposed to run 14 June to 2 September-- that was its summer season in 1963, and no reason to think the 1962 season ended in July. Why would the ICC allow that?
If someone does think 1962 was different, then no reason for them to object to "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and around Christmas, but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Tim Zukas (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (and I hope for a final time) I will repeat that there is a very significant Federal regulatory difference between being required by the ICC to provide "year-round daily train service" over a specific route, and being permitted by the ICC to provide discretionary seasonal service over that route. That is what both Bebe abd Signor (i.e. the "sources") say changed on July 16, 1962, and exactly what my lauguage (see above) reflects. Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it there are really no fundamental factual differences between the two versions (Centpacrr's and Tim Zukas'). Centpacrr seems to be more inclined to describe July 16, 1962 as the precise date after which daily year-round services ended and intermittent seasonal services began. Tim Zukas seems more inclined to describe summer 1962 as a broad period during which the train ran and summer 1963 as the broad period after which it ceased. I assume that Centpacrr agrees with Tim Zukas' claims, but Centpacrr believes the text could be made more specific. The question is whether sources can be located to back this up. For clarity here are four statements. The first two are from the reliable sources that have been offered. The second two are from Cenpacrr and Tim Zukas.
Beebe: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through run to Chicago came on July 16, 1962"
Signor: "July 16, 1962: ... After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays"
Tim Zukas: "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962"
Centpacrr: "the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 ... although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963."
The question is which of the two proposed texts (Cenpacrr's and Tim Zukas') more accurately reflects the reliable sources (Beebe and Signor). If the two of you are unable to agree on this point then I again suggest that we should take the matter to WP:3O where a random uninvolved editor can judge the case and cast the deciding !vote. Would the two of you agree to abide by such a decision? -Thibbs (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"being permitted by the ICC to provide discretionary seasonal service"
"Discretionary" means SP didn't have to provide the service if it didn't want to. Far as we know it ran in summer 1963, so the seasonal service wasn't discretionary. The ICC (or someone) allowed the train to go summer-and-Christmas-only, and no doubt the ICC spelled out what "summer" meant, and summer 1962 didn't end on 16 July, just like summer 1963 didn't.
"Would the two of you agree to abide by such a decision?"
What's the alternative? Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the assistance and guidance of my friend Cara Randall, Librarian at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, I have been able to find the specific terms of the ICC's July, 1962 decision and order relating to the SP's petition (Finance Docket #21946, filed February 5, 1962) to discontinue the San Francisco Overland as a "year-round daily train" and consolidate it with the City of San Francisco, a case which the ICC decided on July 6, 1962 and served its order on the SP on July 16, 1962. This was also the effective date of th SP's new Overland Route Time Tables. On that date the new Time Tables show that the service changed with the consolidation of the San Francisco Overland's SF-Ogden chair cars being included in the City of San Francisco's consist instead of it being a separate train with a different schedule as shown two months earlier in the SP's May, 1962 Time Tables for these two trains. The ICC's order provided that the summer and holiday seasonal service was only required to be provided for one year after the order was served.
Thus after the service previously provided by the San Francisco Overland (TR 27/28) as separate trains running on different schedules were physically consolidated with the City of San Francisco (TR 101/102) on July 16, 1962, its listed seasonal service in 1962 through the 1963-64 holidays appears from the time tables to have been purely titular with no physical separate Overland train ever running after July 16, 1962 other than "second sections" when needed. This would comport with Phelps' note in Signor (p. 276) that "Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted."
The source for this new information is SP's May, July and October, 1962 time tables, and the below verbatim text from the opinion of Decision #70568 of the California PUC in Case #7955 (Filed July 21, 1964). The relevant portions of that Opinion read:
"Southern Pacific Company has been trying to discontinue the Overland trains for several years. On August 25, I960, it petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission for authority to consolidate the same two trains (Finance Docket No. 21255). This was denied (312 ICC 437). Thereupon Southern Pacific commenced another proceeding, Finance Docket No. 21946, seeking in the latter docket the discontinuance of the Overland. Number 21946 was commenced on February 5, 1962. As a practical matter this was a re-litigation of the issue in 21255. However, this was technically not true as the ICC pointed out in its decision.
"In Finance Docket 21946 the ICC handed down its decision on July 6, 1962. It was served on July 16th. It permitted the Southern Pacific to discontinue the Overland except during two seasons. These were the summer season, June 14 through Labor Day and the Christmas and New Year's Day holidays, December 22 through January 2. This operation was ordered to be continued for a period of one year from the date of the decision.
"Southern Pacific actually continued the seasonal operation through the summer of 1963 and the Christmas holidays of 1963-64. When the time came for the summer renewal in 1964 Southern Pacific simply did not renew it as a separate train. It was its position that there was no "change in timetable", no "reduction in the number of passenger trains" and certainly no "reduction in the amount of passenger train service". The timetable and the service in effect on June 13 remained in effect on June 14.
****
"The Commission finds that:
"1. Prior to January 2, 1964, Southern Pacific Company operated its Overland Trains Nos. 27 and 28 from Oakland, California to Ogden, Utah and reverse, on a seasonal basis from June 14 to Labor Day and from December 22 to the ensuing January 2.
"2. After January 2, 1964, Trains Nos. 27 and 28 were discontinued and, on June 14, 1964, they were not revived as separate trains.
"3. Southern Pacific Company failed to give notice of its intention not to revive Trains Nos. 27 and 28 as separate trains on June 14, 1964, either to the Interstate Commerce Commission or to this Commission and others to whom notice is required to be given by the Commission's General Order No. 27-B.
"4. No useful purpose would be served by ordering the operation of separate seasonal Overland trains when the consolidated trains of the City of San Francisco-Overland with second sections as needed will accommodate all of the patronage and provide the same service to the public. Southern Pacific Company is admonished to adhere in the future to the provisions of General Order No. 27-B in filing timetable notice of changes in service.
"The Commission concludes that Case Wo. 7955 should be discontinued."
With this new information it would seem to me that we have adequate reliable sources to support the following:
The designation San Francisco Overland for trains 27 and 28 was retained by the SP between San Francisco and Ogden until that last vestige of the road's original 1899 Overland named train ended as year-round daily service on July 16, 1962 with the ICC's order approving of its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco was served and became effective. The Overland continued with titular seasonal summer and holiday service consolidated with the City of San Francisco until January 2, 1964 after which the Overland name and train numbers disappeared forever from the route.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Solomon 2001 p. 71 ; ICC Financial Docket No. 21946 (Filed February 5, 1962) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, May, 1962, 94th year, No. 12, p. 658 ; Southern Pacific Overland Route Time Tables (Form 4), July 16, 1962 ; Southern Pacific Passenger Train Schedules, October 28, 1962, p. 6, Table 17 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pablumier version would be "In May 1962 the Overland ran between Oakland and Ogden within about an hour of the City of SF's schedule, making the same stops. That July the ICC allowed the two schedules to be combined, and the public timetable for 16 July showed just one schedule for the two trains. (The employee timetable continued to show separate schedules until October 1963, presumably for the dispatcher's convenience.) The name didn't disappear from the public timetable until 1965, but after July 1962 the actual Overland was just a summer-and-Christmas second section of the City. The last runs were 2 January 1964." [Then whatever sources you like.]
Trains 27/28 lasted until 1967 on UP. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why leave out relevant, fully sourced detail? See third paragraph hereCentpacrr (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point #4
Regarding point #4: The question goes to you, Mackensen and Centpacrr. Do you agree that Tim Zukas' version is factually correct? If so, is there any objection to using his phrasing? Tim Zukas, it might also help if you explained your rationale for rephrasing. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Not without re-reading Solomon and Welsh. I chose to be vague because the sources were not specific. If the name San Francisco Overland was used prior to 1947 then Zukas' version would be misleading. By all means if there's a source which states this all straightforwardly I'd gladly accept it. Mackensen(talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Al Phelps (in Signor's book) mentions the dates when the name changed; he just about agrees with the dates given in the back of Beebe's CP&SP. The timetables agree with them, except the train was never actually called S.F. Overland -- probably Phelps didn't mean to say that. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a copy of the Solomon or Welsh to consult? Tim Zukas, can you provide the text of the relevant sections of Phelps in Signor's book and Beebe's CP&SP? -Thibbs (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CP&SP came out circa 1963-- its appendix (written by an SP guy) is a handy summary of the history of lots of SP trains. It gives dates when the Overland Limited became the San Francisco Overland Limited and when it switched back; after 1900 it never had any other name until it lost the "Limited" in 1947. Phelps (in Donner Pass) just about agrees with the dates in CP&SP-- probably he got them from there? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then? If so would Tim Zukas' version work for you, Mackensen? Or would you like to reserve comment until the Solomon and Welsh sources can be consulted? -Thibbs (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then?" Yes.
Soloman/Welsh are probably looking at the same sources we are. If they did say something contrary, a look at the timetables would probably overrule them. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the discussion of point #5 it sounds like you have gained access to Solomon now, Mackensen. Does it agree? And would you be OK with Tim Zukas' version then? -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #2). -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved The fourth point seems to be resolved as well then. I'll collapse this part of the discussion unless there are further comments in the next 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two changes in the names of well known passenger trains of the Southern Pacific Company have been made within the last few weeks. The world famous "Overland Limited" has been changed to the "San Francisco Overland Limited" while the "Statesman" operating between San Francisco and Sacramento, has been re-named the "Sacramento Special".
The present "San Francisco Overland Limited" is one of the best known and most modern trains in the world. It is equipped with all-steel cars of the latest design, providing luxuries and conveniences such as a barber-shop, shower bath, valet service, messaging, maid for women passengers, hairdressing, manicuring, stenographer, stock reports and news items by wire, buffet•clubroom, cafe-dining car and library.
Almost 34 years ago the first limited extra-fare train was put into operation over the present route of the "San Francisco Overland Limited," between San Francisco and Chicago. It was known as the "Golden Gate Special" and made its first trip on December 5. 1888. Electric lights provided a big feature for this first de luxe overland train.
The "Overland Limited" made its initial trip on October 15. 1898 as the successor to the "Golden Gate Special." Many improvements in the appointments of the train have been made since then. The "Sacramento Spectal is one of the best known trains in the State of California and has been very popular because of its convenience to travelers between San Francisco and the state capital. It makes the trip in three hours and fifteen minutes and carrier the most modern equipment.
Per the October, 1962 (95th year, No. 5) issue of THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS at page 654 see here, TR27/28 (by then seasonal and about to be discontinued) still operated as The San Francisco Overland to the end. Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Zukas writes: "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped." Does the The Southern Pacific Bulletin conflict with Tim Zukas' proposed text? Or is the above offered in order to introduce a further clarification? Could we agree to something like this: "The name was changed from Overland Limited to San Francisco Overland Limited in 1922 and remained that way until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped."? -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We actually know a good deal more than that from Beebe (2), Solomon, Welsh, the Nov, 1922 SP Bulletin, and the January, 1889 (2) and October, 1962 Official Guides. My text is the following for the Names section (I have shown where the eight specific and distinct refs go in small type)::
"The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career but it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [ref: Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced its Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [ref: Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINE of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] The Southern Pacific began similar "limited" type daily service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden on December 5, 1888 as the Golden Gate Special. [ref: THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355] On October 15, 1898 the SP changed the name of that train to Overland Limited to match the UP. In the late fall of 1922 the roads again changed the name for the service over the whole route to San Francisco Overland Limited. [refs: The Southern Pacific Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 11, November, 1922. p. 4 ; Beebe 1963 pp. 28-30] The designation "Limited" was dropped from the name on September 1, 1947 when the streamliner City of San Francisco increased its service from thrice weekly to daily thus supplanting the older Overland as both the premier and fastest seven-day-a-week train running over the C&NW/UP/SP route between Chicago and San Francisco, the name it retained on the SP until the end. [refs: Welsh 2008 p. 31 ; “City of San Francisco”/”San Francisco Overland” SP mailer, September 1, 1947 and THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's a much more thorough accounting of the train's official name and it seems to be well sourced. Does it seem to hit the mark for you, Tim Zukas, or are there problems with it? -Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Gate Special wasn't daily, was it? And it ran Oakland to Council Bluffs. In any case it only lasted a couple seasons and isn't an Overland ancestor. The Overland Ltd became the San Francisco Overland Ltd three times. It lost the "Limited" in 1946-47, before the CoSF went daily, and we have no idea why it and the Pacific Ltd and the Golden State Ltd lost their "Limiteds" circa 1947, or why other top SP trains were never called "Limited". (Turns out the UP dropped "Limited" in 1946, and no "Limited" in the 18 May 1947 SP public timetable.)
"The train became the Overland Limited on the UP in 1895 and on the SP in 1898. The name then alternated between that and San Francisco Overland Limited until 1946-47 when "Limited" was dropped." If you want dates for the alternation get them from CP&SP or Phelps' notes in Signor's book; that other sourcing is a useless attempt to impress the reader (as if a raging controversy about when the name changed required scrupulous sourcing). Tim Zukas (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally rigorous sourcing shouldn't be regarded as indicative of a controversy, and it's better to think of sources as helpful to reader comprehension instead of simply impressive. But it is true that a higher standard is required when sourced claims are challenged. From WP:V we know that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" (emphasis added). So for a challenged set of claims regarding specific dates when the train's name changed we would need reliable sources that directly support the dates and name changes. The timetables are adequate to source a claim regarding the train's name on a certain date (the date of the specific cited timetable), but such a source is not sufficient to support a challenged claim regarding the date of the name's change. For a claim like that to survive a challenge would require a source more like the The Southern Pacific Bulletin source linked above. If we can't find an agreement on this history then it might be a good idea to consider trimming it down and generalizing it to only those statements that can be directly supported. -Thibbs (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)
The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career although it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] On October 15, 1899 the SP inaugurated its own Overland Limited (TR1&2) joining of its long standing Atlantic Express (eastbound) (TR4) and Pacific Express (westbound) (TR3) San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden trains to connect with the UP's Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs Overland Limited train. Known variously by that name, S.F. Overland Limited, and San Francisco Overland Limited for the next 32 years, on May 31, 1931 the service again became the San Francisco Overland Limited and its train numbers changed from "1 and 2" to "27 and 28". On July 10, 1947 the designation "Limited" was dropped from the name. The designation 'San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1887 service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although continued to operate seasonal service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51, Welsh 2008 p. 31 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This new version drops mention of the Golden Gate Special per Tim Zukas' objections. It again seems decently sourced. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Could you live with it? -Thibbs (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will I die if that gets in the article? I'm hoping not. It's easy to improve, tho.
The Overland Flyer was always a Chicago-Oakland train-- correct? So don't say UP introduced it-- say it only had that name on UP if you like.
SP called it Atlantic/Pacific Express, which was not an Oakland-Ogden train "connect"ing to the Overland. The eastward train was then train 3, not train 4, not that that needs to be in the article.
Nothing was inaugurated in 1898-- SP changed its name but the train didn't change as far as we know.
In 1899-1947 the train was the Overland Limited or the San Francisco Overland Limited-- nothing else.
"Limited" was dropped on UP in 1946 and on SP in May 1947 or earlier.
No objection to a mention of the Golden Gate Special. Don't call it daily, and don't call it Oakland-Ogden, don't call it an Overland ancestor, etc. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The SP's Overland Limited was indeed a new, "strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited train composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars" that was inaugurated by the SP on October 15, 1899, and very different from the Atlantic Express and Pacific Express, trains that existed on the CPRR long before the UP's Overland Flyer (see the 1876 Official Guide listing here) and that both continued to operate under those names until May, 1904 when they became the Western Express. Per Beebe, from 1887 to when the SP's separate Overland Limited service was established in 1899, operation of service from Council Bluffs to San Francisco and beyond was accomplished by the interchange at Ogden between the UPs Overlands and the SP's existing Expresses of sleepers to and from San Francisco as well as Portland, and Los Angeles. Also note that train numbers (odd and even) were reversed at the same time so that westbound became odd numbered and eastbound became even numbered.
Per Beebe at page 28:
"The Overland from the beginning carried through cars for San Francisco over the Central Pacific connection at Ogden, as well as Portland and Los Angeles sleepers, but for twelve long years after its inaugural on the Union Pacific the trains name abruptly vanished at the edge of Great Salt Lake. The Central Pacific wanted nothing of it. Its cars were integrated at Ogden to the long established Atlantic and Pacific Expressesand passengers went through in a complete continuity of passage, but not the word Overland. Its loss of identity the moment it got its highball out of Ogden westbound and its reassumption of that identity as soon as a U. P. locomotive was coupled to its drawbar eastbound is one of the enigmas of railroad history.
"Not only did the Central Pacific, for twelve years, want nothing of The Overland Flyer and later The Overland Limited, it never acknowledged the existence of the Overland Route. Until 1899 when the long shadow of Edward Henry Harriman was already falling over the decaying empire of the Big Four, its mainline between California and Utah was designated on all Central Pacific and Southern Pacific company literature as The Ogden Gateway Route or in bursts of pure poetry as The Dining Car Route."
Per Signor at page 62:
"A general realignment of [SP] passenger schedules had been implemented system wide on October 15, 1899, making odd numbers westbound (toward San Francisco) and even numbers eastbound, where formerly the reverse had held sway. With the inauguration of Nos. 1 and 2, the Overland Limited, transcontinental schedules on the "Overland Route" increased to six a day. Sunset Magazine, the official house organ of the Southern Pacific's passenger department, described the new all-vestibuled train as one composed of the finest equipment — a veritable "Aladdin's Carpet" — possessing all the comforts that a comfortable mind could suggest. Fully twelve hours were shaved off the, then best, eastbound schedule and four hours off the westbound, the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars.
"At this time, train Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 rounded out the long distance schedules on the Mountain. Westbound, Nos. 3 and 5 were both known as the Pacific Express; Nos. 4 and 6, the Atlantic Express. This confusing situation existed until May 14, 1904, when No. 5 was renamed the Western Express and No. 6 the Eastern Express, the first in a series of name changes for these trains."
The source for the weekly Golden Gate Special being the SP's first extra-fare "limited" train and the Overland Limited being its successor is "The Southern Pacific Bulletin", Vol XI, No. 11, November, 1922, p.4 (see here). Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars"
Looks like Signor or somebody got that wrong-- no mention of extra fare in the 3/00 or 1/01 Guides. In 3/00 the Overland carried chair cars east of Omaha. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Signor (who is quoting the November, 1899 issue of Sunset Magazine published by the SP's passenger department) is describing the SP's Overland Limited which operated between SF and Ogden, not the Overland service operated "east of Omaha" which was run by the C&NW. (Omaha was also then 1,034 UP track miles east of Ogden.) Do you claim that the 3/00 and 1/01 Guides specifically say "no extra fare" in the listings for the SP's Overland Limited, or is it silent on that? If it does not explicitly say so about this Pullman Palace Car luxury train (as described in its November, 1899 newspaper ad in the San Francisco Call), then Beebe, Signor, and Sunset Magazine (Nov., 1899) are the determinative sources as to this being an "extra fare" train. Centpacrr (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Signor (who is quoting..."
No indication that that part of Signor's text is a quote.
"Do you claim..."
No.
"...are the determinative sources..."
What's the difference between a determinative source and an undeterminative one? (Offhand guess: Beebe doesn't say it was extra fare in 1900. For all we know, Sunset doesn't either.)
When they cut the Overland's schedule in 1913 it started charging extra fare, and the Guide said it was extra fare. That ended circa 1918. When the schedule became 63 hours in 1926 they resumed the extra fare, and the Guide said it was extra fare. That ended circa 1931. When the City of SF and City of LA started in 1936 they were extra fare, as the Guide said. Far as we know, whenever the Chief or 20th Century Ltd or Cascade or Panama Ltd or any other train charged an extra fare, the Guide said so. It's relevant info for Guide users-- no reason to leave it out. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Signor is making a verbatim quote from Sunset Magazine, he identifies it as the source for his text "described the new all-vestibuled train as one composed of the finest equipment — a veritable "Aladdin's Carpet" — possessing all the comforts that a comfortable mind could suggest. Fully twelve hours were shaved off the, then best, eastbound schedule and four hours off the westbound, the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars." (See also the November, 1899 SP ad in the San Francisco Call describing it as a luxury train linked here.)
I understand now that you are not claiming that the 3/00 or 1/01 Guides contain the words "no extra fare" in their listings of the SP Overland Limited so they are not a source either way being silent on the issue.
"Determinative sources": See the two comments immediately above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Per Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the American Scene by Harvard University Professor John R. Stilgoe (Yale University Press, 1985) at pp. 61-62:
"If the 20th Century and its ever-present competitor The Broadway Limited, represented the epitome in express-train design, perhaps The Overland Limited best represented the typical first-class train. Operating between Chicago and San Francisco, it long remained the train favored by gold-mine millionaires and other well-to-do Californias. ... The Southern Pacific Company announced the refurbished train in an 1899 issue of the company periodical, Sunset Magazine. As a result of "the phenomenal tourist travel to California during the corning winter, which now seems assured," the company new trains would be added. A month later, Sunset Magazine proclaimed the success of The Overland Limited: "It's an Aladdin's Carpet—three days and nights between San Francisco and Chicago; all the comforts that a comfortable mind can suggest; and all the traveling luxuries a luxurious imagination knows".
"While the railroad emphasized the "ne plus ultra of service", it also advertised a running time reduced by about twelve hours. Although not a remarkably fast train—the Rocky Mountains prevented speeds common in the East and on the Plains—it gradually captured the attention of the region through which it passed. The Overland maintained its reputation as a luxury or "candy train." It carried a barber and a ladies' maid, a smoking compartment separated from the central passage corridor (so that no women might detect the odor of cigars), and, of course, an open-platform observation car."
Per this description, the SP's 1899 new Overland Limited was the very essence of an extra fare train. Centpacrr (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently SP/UP/CNW didn't think so.
The article can say "Signor says the Overland was extra fare, but Guides and timetables don't mention an extra fare until the schedule was cut by several hours in 1913." Tim Zukas (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again since (as you have already admitted) the two 1900 Official Guides you rely on are both silent on the issue (i.e. saying neither "extra fare" or "no extra fare"), they can't be relied on as being determinative as a reliable source on this issue either way and attempting to do so is merely speculative or "original research". What a Guide published thirteen years later may say is also irrelevant for the same reason. Centpacrr (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like this as a compromise: "According to Signor the Overland was extra fare. The guides and timetables begin to mention an extra fare when the schedule was cut by several hours in 1913." or even just "According to Signor the Overland was extra fare."? Would either of those satisfy both of you? -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well be more specific-- "Signor says the Overland was extra fare. The guides and timetables begin to mention an extra fare when the schedule was cut to 65 hours in 1913." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would that work for you, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be satisfied with the following to cover both points 3 (see my detailed new posting on this point above) and 4:
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career although it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe, extra fare service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special although dropped this train after just five months.[ THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355 ; "The Golden Gate Special to be discontinued after the 12th of May", The Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 61, Number 56, April 29, 1889, p. 1] For the next decade the UP/SP connection at Ogden was with the SP's eastbound Atlantic Express and westbound Pacific Express until October 15, 1899 when the SP inaugurated its own Overland Limited (TR1&2) to connect with the UP's Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs Overland Limited train and providing 71-hour through service. The SP described its new train as "An Elegant Solid Vestibuled Train of Composite Car, with library, Smoking Parlor, Buffet, etc. Luxurious Double Drawing-room Sleeping Cars, Dining Car. The Fastest Overland service in the history of transcontinental railroading."[ SP Overland Limited Advertisement The San Francisco Call, November, 1899] On January 1, 1913 the Overland Limited became an extra-fare ($10) train when it further cut its running time from 68 to 64 hours and added amenities such as a barber, manicurist, stenographer, bath, etc. [The Straits Times, November 19, 1912, p. 9]
Known variously as both the Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited for the next 32 years, on May 31, 1931 the service again became the San Francisco Overland Limited when its train numbers changed from "1 and 2" to "27 and 28". On July 10, 1947 the designation "Limited" was dropped from the name altogether. The name San Francisco Overland for trains 27 and 28 was retained by the SP between San Francisco and Ogden until that last vestige of the road's original 1899 Overland Limited named train ended as year-round daily service on July 16, 1962 with the ICC's July 6 order approving of its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco became effective. The Overland continued with titular seasonal summer and holiday service consolidated with the City of San Francisco until January 2, 1964 after which the Overland name and train numbers disappeared forever from the route.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Solomon 2001 p. 71 ; ICC Financial Docket No. 21946 (Filed February 5, 1962) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, May, 1962, 94th year, No. 12, p. 658 ; Southern Pacific Overland Route Time Tables (Form 4), July 16, 1962 ; Southern Pacific Passenger Train Schedules, October 28, 1962, p. 6, Table 17 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usual corrections--
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)"The Overland Limited 's name varied but it was generally known as the Overland whatever other words were added. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] SP called the eastbound Overland the Atlantic Express and westbound the Pacific Express until October 15 1899 when it adopted the Overland Limited name for the train that then began running between Chicago and San Francisco in about 72 hours each way. The SP described the new train as "An Elegant Solid Vestibuled Train of Composite Car, with library, Smoking Parlor, Buffet, etc. Luxurious Double Drawing-room Sleeping Cars, Dining Car. The Fastest Overland service in the history of transcontinental railroading."[ SP Overland Limited Advertisement The San Francisco Call, November, 1899] The name was Overland Limited or San Francisco Overland Limited until 1946-47 when "Limited" was dropped.
The first deluxe, extra fare train between San Francisco/Oakland and Council Bluffs was the weekly Golden Gate Special that ran from December 1888 until May 1889.[ THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355 ; "The Golden Gate Special to be discontinued after the 12th of May", The Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 61, Number 56, April 29, 1889, p. 1] In 1913 the Overland Limited became an extra-fare ($10) train when it cut its schedule to 65 hours and added a barber, manicurist, stenographer, bath, etc. [The Straits Times, November 19, 1912, p. 9] The extra fare ended in 1918 when the schedule reverted to 70+ hours. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point #5: Are there disagreements over the factual aspects of Tim Zukas' rewording? The source that is cited for this claim is Joe Welsh's "Union Pacific's Streamliners". Can anybody provide a copy of the relevant text from page 85? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I added the original wording but I do not currently have access to Welsh. If heavyweight cars remained in the consist then the addition of the word "partially" is in order. I do not know if that detail is in Welsh. Mackensen(talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The question isn't whether it occasionally had heavyweights in the consist; the question is what the standard consist was. Mackensen(talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to hunt for a picture of an all-lightweight Overland on any day in the 1940s. (Or for any other evidence that it was all-lightweight in 1943.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't prove anything if I did find such a picture. We need a reliable source stating what the consist was. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we need a source. Mackensen(talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures are not the best sources to use because they require interpretation (sometimes expert interpretation). Per WP:V, sources should directly (i.e. explicitly) support challenged claims. The images do suggest that heavyweights remained in use as part of the train after 1943, but I'm not sure that this is contradicted by the phrase "the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added)... If the word "re-equipped" seems to suggest "entirely replaced" then perhaps something like "equipped" or "outfitted" would produce a suitably ambiguous phrase. Would that work for either of you? -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think "gained" would be an appropriate choice here. Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate. We need a source. Mackensen(talk) 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text on page 85 of Welsh that seems to address this issue directly reads:
"Prior to the war, UP's president and his staff had explored the concept of providing daily streamliner service. As a result, Union Pacific, SP, C&NW, and Pullman ordered 148 new, light-weight cars to upgrade the Los Angeles Limited, San Francisco Overlandand Portland Rose. The timely arrival in 1941-1942 of the order, including 78 sleepers, 30 baggage cars, 10 RPOs, and 30 coaches, helped the railroad to weather the demands of World War II and to operate extra sections of existing trains."
It seems clear from this that light-weight cars were in regular use on Overland service as early as 1941, but with the extremely heavy demand for intercity rail transport during WWII all available equipment (including older heavy-weight cars) was doubtless used on extra sections of all these services as well. Centpacrr (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) I think we're all agreed on this point. Does anyone object to "gained" as a verb? Mackensen(talk) 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now have both Solomon's UP book and his SP book. He says in the UP book (p. 75) that "in 1951 the was given new, streamlined rolling stock." In the SP book (p. 69) he says of a lightweight car order that "some cars...were used to bolster San Francisco Overland trains.". Mackensen(talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mackensen. So can we all agree to this: "In 1941-42 the Overland gained American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers." -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some lightweight sleepers." to make it clear that the lightweights didn't replace all the old sleepers. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, Mackensen and Centpacrr? Would "started carrying some" be an acceptable replacement for "gained"? -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Robert Wayner's Car Names, Numbers and Consists, no lounge and/or observation cars were carried on the Overland and other intercity trains during WWII in compliance with the Office of Defense Transportation directive banning strictly luxury cars without revenue capacity. Centpacrr (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further research, Centpacrr. Just to be clear, is the Wayner source being offered in support the idea that all heavyweight cars were replaced by lightweights? And is it intended to support the original "re-equipped" phrasing? -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is to point out that the comment above that "Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war." seems largely irrelevant as no heavy-weight lounges or observation cars were carried either as, by order to the ODT, all such "non revenue producing" luxury cars were removed from the consists of all intercity trains and stored from the start of the war to 1946. Centpacrr (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Would you be amenable to Tim Zukas' suggestion that we reword "In 1941-42 the Overland was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added) to "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some lightweight sleepers" (emphasis added)? -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wayner states in Car Names, Numbers an Consists (pp. 156-57) about the new lightweight head-end and sleeper cars delivered in 1942 that: Pullman-Standard built two groups of sleeping cars for Overland Route service in 1942. The (sixty) AMERICAN series cars, containing 6 roomettes, 6 open sections and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4099, Lot 6669, built in May and June. The (eighteen) IMPERIAL cars, with 4 compartments, 2 drawing rooms and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4069H, Lot 6668, delivered in March and April. The AMERICAN and IMPERIAL series cars were painted two-tone gray as delivered. The AMERICAN-series cars were placed in the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains. Three groups of new lightweight head-end (baggage and RPO) and chair cars for use on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains were also built and delivered to the UP in late 1941 and early 1942. None of the new cars were initially assigned to any of the CITY (SF, LA and Portland) streamliners.
I would thus be satisfied with: "In 1942 newly delivered Pullman-Standard built lightweight sleeper, chair, RPO and baggage cars were put in service on the San Francisco Overland Limited. At the same time existing heavyweight lounge and observation cars were removed from the consists and placed in storage to comply with the 1942 General Order of the Office of Defense Transportation (ODT)banning the use of all non-revenue producing luxury cars from intercity routes during WWII. Those cars were not permitted to be returned to service on any US trains until 1946." Centpacrr (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1941-42 the Overland got its first lightweight sleepers, new Pullman-built 6-6-4s and 4-4-2s." No coaches on the Overland then. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestion strikes me as being wholly inadequate. First it makes no mention at all of the removal of the luxury cars from 1942 to 1946 at the order of the ODT, nor of the replacement of HW head-end (baggage, RPO) cars with new LW ones. Even though the train was listed as "all-Pullman" at the start of the war, Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in Overland's consists during the War as well. (Wayner, p. 158 supra) (User Zukas provides no sources to refute that or support his assertion that "No coaches on the Overland then.") The SF Overland Limited became predominately a military train during WWII routinely running multiple 20-car sections pulled by a pair of UP 800 class steam locomotives. (Beebe, pp. 41, 138) By 1946 an articulated pair of LW 48-seat chair cars appear in the train's OAK-CHI consist. I am endeavoring to find out when in 1942 (or after) the new LW chair cars were added to the train, but because it was a primary means of transportation for service members heading to the Pacific coast, under order of the War Production Board, no new passenger cars of any kind (including sleepers) were built between mid 1942 and late 1945, civilian train travel was severely restricted by the ODT and yet passenger traffic during the War was more than three times its pre-war level, I suspect that the appearance of chair cars on the Overland was much earlier rather than later. Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in Overland's consists during the War"
He doesn't. Wayner did a terrific job on his books-- far as ignorant folks like us can tell, he doesn't make errors, and he didn't make that one.
By the way: the pic on page 138 of Beebe's book is postwar-- early 1950s, likely. Ditto the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the text in Wayner and Beebe again. Wayner says at page iii (Introduction) that: "This book is a record of streamlined and lightweight passenger-train cars built and operated in the United States." At page 157 (Wartime Changes and Acquisitions) he writes that: "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains." To me Wayner's language (as well as the other factors I mentioned) thus clearly indicates that chair cars were indeed carried on the Overlandduring the war. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
Beebe writes at page 135: "In the early thirtiesThe Overland, shown above eastbound with the identifying campanile of Cheyenne depot in the background, acknowledged hard times by including a coach in its otherwise impeccably all-Pullman consist. Public cars, buffet diner and observation, were air conditioned. So was a single through sleeper for San Francisco. Open platform observation cars lasted, of course, until the 1941 war. No self-respecting train was without one." This is confirmed in the consist listing (see here) from a 1930's SP timetable for The San Francisco Overland Limited (TR27) included on that page in Beebe showing a Chi-SF chair car on the train. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
Beebe writes at page 138: "When The San Francisco Overland, shown here running double headed with seventeen cars , was predominately a military train during the years of the 1941 war, it often ran in two sections with maximum tonnage capacity of two of the Union Pacific's powerful 800 class engines. There were more than forty train movements a day across Sherman and train crews didn't bother to change the smokebox numbers on the helper engines as is evident on No. 802 in this picture. " To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies this picture as being of the Overland taken during the war years. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise to dispute Beebe and supports your claim that this train "is postwar-- early 1950s"? (I am unclear as to why you mention "the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7" as I made no reference to any of those images.)
Beebe also writes at page 138: "During the war years some of the trimmings depicted in the promotional montage opposite, notably the barber shop, shower bath, and open platform observation car lounge, were temporarily abated." This, as I mentioned in my version, was because of a 1942 order of the Office of Defense Transportation banning the carriage of non-revenue producing luxury cars on intercity trains, a provision which remained in effect until rescinded in 1946. Wayner also states this fact at page 157. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
So again, sir, what source(s) are you depending upon to dispute Wayner and Beebe and support your claim that "No coaches on the Overland then."? So far you have not provided any. Centpacrr (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, things are starting to get a little heated and that's not helpful to resolving the issues here. Given the nature of the subject matter we are forced to rely heavily on text sources and these can be more difficult for the editor with the burden of proof to skim through and for the challenging party to verify than with digital sources. It's understandable that this leads to frustration on both sides, but let's take a step back and refocus. We were discussing whether all heavyweight cars had been entirely replaced by lightweights or whether the train had possibly carried a mix of HWs and LWs. From earlier comments I was under the impression that there weren't any sources that addressed this directly. In light of this the suggestion was made to instead use language that addressed the addition of lightweights (a fact for which there seem to be plenty of sources) without saying that all heavyweights had been removed. Centpacrr would you be OK with leaving the language ambiguous by only addressing lightweights and failing to explicitly say that all heavyweights were removed? Coverage of the ODT ban would suggest that the heavyweight cars had been removed without explicitly saying so. Tim Zukas, would it be ok to mention the ODT ban? -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that no HW cars were carried during the war or thereafter. With passenger traffic more than tripling during the war years but no new passenger cars of any kind built between mid 1942 and late 1945, virtually every existing passenger car (except "luxury" cars), both HW and LW, was in heavy use throughout the war. What I am saying that user Zukas appears to dispute is that Wayner states that the 1941-42 LW chair cars were used on the SF Overland Limited during the war years, and that Beebe states that the SFOL (TR27/28) carried at least one chair car over its entire route as early as "the early 1930s". I have provided above the verbatim quotes from the text in both Wayner and Beebe that supports this while user Zukas has not offered any citations or sources to either refute that or to support his position that only sleepers -- but not chair cars -- where carried on the train prior to 1946. What I have therefore asked is that he provide some reliable source(s) to refute what Wayner and Beebe clearly say on this issue which is that the train included chair cars with the sleepers during the war and earlier. To date he has supplied nothing that does that. As for using "text sources" WP does so all the time and is not -- and never has been -- WP policy to limit citations to only "digital sources". Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably his quote from Wayner is correct: "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains." As other readers can see, Wayner doesn't say which trains got which cars. The public timetables say the Overland quit carrying coaches from around 1938 until 1946.
Mackensen said above "Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate." He's right-- that implication is what I'm trying to remove. The Overland got some lightweight sleepers circa 1941-42; none of us has a clue what percentage of its cars were heavyweight after that, except we know it's a good bet it wasn't zero.
"Would it be ok to mention the ODT ban?" Sure-- not that it matters.
In other news: "To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies this picture as being of the Overland taken during the war years..." Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you think that ...for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED" -- the only train that Wayner specifically names as getting the cars -- means other than that these cars were operated on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED?
Once again I have never claimed that the SFOL was "all LW" so that is not an issue with me. For the reasons I have noted above regarding the level of passenger traffic during the war being more than three times what it was prewar, and Beebe's statement at page 41 that during the War "The Overland ran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train", it is clear that that the consists were made up of both LW and HW cars.
Once again, sir, you continue to make lots of claims (such as "Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No.") but still provide NO SOURCES whatsoever to support them other than your "personal word" or "opinion". That, however, is just not the way WP operates. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK there seems to be broad agreement now on the original concern here (i.e. we agree that there was a mix of heavyweight and lightweight cars). The locus of the dispute now seems to have become whether the Overland carried coach cars during the war years. Is that accurate? It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches, and Tim Zukas is citing the public timetables. Centparr has provided the text of the Beebe source. It would be helpful if we could get a link to, scan of, or transcription of the public timetables. Could you provide us with that evidence, Tim Zukas? If the two sources in fact disagree then we will have to consider their respective degrees of reliability and if this fails to break the deadlock then we will have to mention both claims with appropriate attribution. There are many ways to provide appropriate attribution if it comes to that. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already ordered hard copies of both Don DeNevi's America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History (1996) as well as Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII (2009) which have both been shipped and I should have in hand by the end of the week. The information they contain should go a long way to answering this and any other questions relating to the makeup and operations of the SFOL and other intercity trains during WWII. Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches"
That the train did carry coaches in the early 1930s, which is true. No disagreement in the sources about 1939-1945.
On second thought: if the article mentions the ODT ban, we're bound to get it wrong-- we don't know what kinds of cars were allowed. In 1943 the Overland carried a "buffet-club car" with barber, valet and shower bath, and a sleeper-observation, and a diner of course. The Challenger had a lounge car and a diner. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am citing both Beebe (pp. 41, 135, 138 et al) and Wayner (pp. 156-157 et al) with regard to the deployment and use by the SP, UP and C&NW of both new (1941-42) LW head-end, sleeper and chair cars on the SFOL in WWII, and ODT's 1942 General Order re the carriage of non-revenue luxury cars on intercity trains, and will be reviewing both DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly for further consist and operational information on the SFOL and other Overland Route trains during the war years when I receive their books on the subject of WWII railroads in the US later this week. Centpacrr (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How did you consult the public timetables, Tim Zukas? Are they available online or only offline? Are they in the form of a book or are they kept in an archives somewhere? At this point we need to be able to use them to verify the claim that the Overland discontinued the use of coaches from 1938 until 1946. -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think they'd be online somewhere-- a few websites have scans of old airline timetables-- but I don't remember seeing a scan of 1940s SP or UP public timetables. I'm looking at paper timetables, and Official Guides would serve as well if a university library near you has them. If you want a paper copy of the relevant timetable page, speak up. But note the article doesn't mention the matter, and doesn't need to-- only reason it came up is he wrongly thought the Overland got lightweight coaches in 1941-42. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both Beebe and Wayner indicate that some of the 1941-42 LW chair cars were utilized by the SFOL during the war years as does "Civilian War Transport : A Record of the Control of Domestic Traffic Operations by the Office of Defense Transportation 1941-1946" (ODT, 1948). The UP's November 1, 1943 Condensed Time Tables list only six CHI-SF cars (three sleepers, a combination sleeper-observation, a diner, and a buffet) on the train. This arrangement would give the train the capacity to carry at most about 70-75 passengers. While Beebe (who lived in Reno, NV, and wrote that he rode this train often both as a passenger and in his own private car attached to its end) says at p. 41 of The Overland Limited that "During the 1941 war when the theater of operations was shifting to the Pacific and the entire world of military personnel, politics, logistics and allied civilian activity was turning its face westward, The Overlandran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train." That being the case, the "equipment listing" in the time table showing only six through cars is clearly not complete as to what the SFOL actually carried and thus cannot be used as a definitive source. The question is therefore still open and unresolved. I'll see what DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly have to say on this when those volumes arrive later this week. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Tim Zukas is correct that this fact (i.e. the Overland's use of coach cars during the war years) doesn't appear in either the previous or current version of the article then this would seem to be more of an academic discussion than a content-oriented discussion and thus better suited for a venue like user talk than DRN. Centpacrr, do you anticipate that this fact will eventually work its way into the article? -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have two more sources to consult -- Don DeNevi's America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History (1996) and Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII (2009) -- on order which I will have in hand by Friday. Both books are specifically about US railroads during WWII and I will see what they say about all the extra cars (up to 30 a day on two sections) that are not included in the CTT equipment listings for the SFOL during the war years. When I am able to document what they were I will be adding that to the article. Centpacrr (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I've been holding off on removing errors from the article while this discussion was going on. Is that request no longer in effect? Tim Zukas (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to state in here what you think may be an error and provide reliable sources to support your claim. As we have already seen with regard to the makeup of consists (especially during the war years), equipment listings in time tables and the monthly Railway Guides are not definitive as in many instances listed trains carried many more cars cars than listed there. The SFOL, for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT while Beebe states at page 41 that during WWII this service regularly ran in multiple sections with twenty cars per train -- 14 more cars per train than the minimum consists listed in the UP CTT. Centpacrr (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Zukas is correct that I had asked that all edits to the article cease while we discuss the 5 identified problems. As it is the question on which this point #5 was based has morphed into a substantively different question and further edits to the body of the article may introduce new points of contention. Let us try to find resolution on all of the identified problem issues before forging ahead. We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus on this new point #5, Centpacrr, but while we wait could you turn your attention to questions such as the one I've asked at the end of point #3 above? And Tim Zukas, please turn your attention to point #4 which has recently been re-opened. -Thibbs (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The SFOL, for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT"
The timetable lists the kinds of cars on the train (or maybe the kinds of accommodation) and says nothing about how many of each kind it will carry.
But we can hope it will list all the kinds of cars, and that doesn't include coaches in 1943-- right?
"We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus"
They won't help. No source so far says the Overland carried coaches in 1941, and probably they won't either. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the November 1, 1943 UP CTT does state a specific number (not "kinds") of CHI-OAK/SF through passenger cars on a standard unaugmented SFOL consist and that number is "six" (see here). However as Beebe states (p. 41) that during the war years "The Overland ran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train" and Wayner (p. 157) states that "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains", despite the "All Pullman" label for the train, the specific types and numbers of the 28 (per Beebe) extra sleeper, head-end and (per Wayner) chair cars that were added to the consists of the two daily SFOL augmented sections remain undocumented and thus neither proven or disproven either way. Centpacrr (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked through the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources now Centpacrr? Is there enough there to cover the issue of which specific kinds of cars The Overland used during the war years? If so, please draft a proposed text to be added to the article so that Tim Zukas gets a chance to look it over. -Thibbs (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those two books seem to be silent on the issue so I am going to contact two long time friends and colleagues, Kyle Wyatt, the resident historian at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, and Wendell Huffman, Curator of History and Collections Manager at the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City, to see what help they can offer. This will probably take a few days. Centpacrr (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this discussion
Pinging @Mackensen, @Centpacrr, and @Tim Zukas: - The typical length of time for a case at DRN is 2 weeks. We are now very far past this point and I think we have reached the point where we should return to the article's talk page for the remainder of the discussion. The discussions so far have led to consensus on two points, and have led to considerable research into the facts of the remaining three points. It would be helpful for future editors to be able to refer to these details on the talk page rather than having to refer to this DRN case. Would the three of you be amenable to this idea? If so I would be happy to continue working with you as a neutral third party peer rather than a moderator. Or, if you would prefer, the issue can progress to the next phase in dispute resolution (either request for comment or formal mediation). Our time at DRN has come to an end, but I thank you all for working with me in a more-or-less agreeable manner. Although we have not solved all of the problems I believe we are well on our way. Please let me know at my talk page if you would like me to weigh in at the article talk page, or I would be happy to assist you in filing a request for comment or request for formal mediation. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no compromise was able to be met, we got close several times but I'm afraid the conversation just started going in circles and no end was in sight. Kharkiv07Talk 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The page is confusing, inaccurate and poorly sourced. The other editor does not agree on how it should be fixed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
none
How do you think we can help?
Moderate Discussion to keep it focused on the content.
Summary of dispute by montanabw
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This article passed GA a year ago under the leadership of User:Dana boomer. While all articles can always be improved, and the editor above rightly noted some statistical information that was not well-stated - and has since been adjusted, her remaining "suggestions" on "improving" the article largely consist of inserting WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, sourced - poorly - to obsolete materials. She also appears to not understand WP:UNDUE. Any attempts to discuss quickly devolves into a massive waste of bandwidth to the point that it becomes impossible to even track what this editor wants; she contradicts herself, changes her position frequently, and the edit history of the talk page shows her editing pattern of making dozens of edits to produce just a few paragraphs - it's a horribly confusing method. Her behavior has resulted in two articles being fully protected. I am not opposed to compromise and collaboration, but it appears that it is impossible with this editor. Note: This editor has only edited substantially since last fall, and though she created this account in 2010, there were only two edits made at the time. This is a remarkably precocious editor or else we have a yet-undetermined sockpuppet account. Montanabw(talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm Kharkiv07, and I'm a volunteer moderator around here and I will be taking this case. Before we begin I'd like to remind you that you must remain and civil and absolutely may not make personal comments or comments on conduct. I'd also like to note that I am an unbiased third party, and I will not be giving opinions on article content, but rather helping the two of you to form an agreement together. Finally, I'd ask you to keep your statements short and concise, it'll be easier for everybody to understand and will help us resolve this conflict as soon as possible.
From what I understand there are quite a few content disputes going on here, and I think the best way to go about this is solving a few and then getting you on the path to having a good dialogue. So, at least to begin with, SheriWysong why don't you give me two or three additions/revisions you'd like to make, and then montanabw I'd like to hear, kindly and citing Wikipedia policy, what you think the problems are with these changes.
Once again I remind you that you two must remain civil at all times.
Thank you, Kharkiv07. I will put up my proposed revisions shortly.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by SheriWysong
"No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West, according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a 'guess.' However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and any estimate is speculative.[6]"
I would like for the statement to either be replaced or more accurately reflect what Dobie said, which was: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." It is important to put Dobie's words in context as to time (1848-NOT the late 1800s or early 1900s,) and place, because the article deals with horses and numbers that are in a different geographic area, so Dobie's statement really is not relevant.
"However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8]"
This statement is sourced to a reference that is also talking about horses in a different geographic location, not the horses subject to the Act of the article. It has not been established that the numbers of the horses subject to the Act declined at all, much less because they were competing with cattle and sheep for resources.
"After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land."
Since no number is provided for the mid-1930s, and there's not source that said they declined, this is unverified.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Sorry for not pining you when I opened this, please tell us if you disagree with any of the changes here, and if so why. Kharkiv07Talk 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by montanabw
I have an openness to improving the article, but do not agree with many of Wysong's suggestions for improvement (I actually DO agree with a few) but these issues are being discussed exhaustively at Talk:Mustang and again at Talk:Wild_and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_improvement with little consensus because the debate gets so long that no one can even follow it any longer. It seems to become about who is right, not about consensus. I made a few changes in response to Wysong's criticism, but I didn't agree with all or her suggestions, and I tried to explain why, but ... well, here we are. This is an article about a piece of legislation with a summary of the history leading up to the act; this article is not the Wild horse preservation article, nor is it the Mustang article. We don't need endless detail. I will try to summarize my answers as concisely as possible. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two million figure needs to stay for the following reasons: It is sourced originally to J. Frank Dobieon p. 108 and is explained and analyzed here (See "Myth #13"). The reason we include Dobie at all is explained by the BLM page; that the figure has "...been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." In other words, the article "teaches the controversy" by explaining the source of one of the most common numbers that is bandied about. (read the History section of the article for full context). Wysong's insistence on the "mournful to history" direct quote is unencyclopedic writing and unneeded; we are NOT claiming that there were - or were not - two million Mustangs in the Old West; we are addressing a common misunderstood statistic and then moving on. No, I do not agree with her suggested changes or her reasoning; if the two million concept can be phrased better or explained better, WITHOUT close paraphrasing, long quotes without analysis, OR or SYNTH, then I'm open to improvement of the phrasing to get that point across. I have not been open to Wysong's suggestion, nor her reasoning behind it. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not precisely sure what Wysong's concerns are here. Actually, the Fran Lynghaug source at page 104 here is contained in an article on the Pryor Mountain Mustangs of Montana, one of the groups of Mustangs that does live in the American west and are now protected by the Act. So while it addressed one specific group, the source verifies the general statement that there was a general decline of Mustang numbers across the western United States and that competition with livestock was a reason for this decline (put bluntly, ranchers rounded up feral horses and generally shipped them off for slaughter as horsemeat). Wysong herself proposed (at the talk page) something like: "Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle." with a different sourcing original diff (diff shown has been subsequently edited). I'm open to a rephrase of that sentence. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there IS a number; For an estimate, I'd be open to noting the numbers in the 1930s that are mentioned at this source, which states that in 1934, (i.e "the 1930s") there were "an estimated 150,000 wild horses on public land in 11 western states" I would be open to further refinement of that section to clarify matters further if language could be agreed upon. When the 1971 Act was passed in that period of time a reasonably accurate census of mustang numbers was done; using those numbers, it is blatently obvious that by 1971 there was a clear and dramatic drop from what they once were. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this makes my position clear. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I don't know if it's against protocol to answer without the moderator (@Kharkiv07:), but to move things along, I though I would go ahead and do it. A lot of the dispute revolves along montanabw's issues with "close paraphrasing" or "quoting". But, I have not seen any wiki policy against either one, as long as the paraphrases or quotes are short and cited. wp:paraphrase None of the quotes I have suggest are more than one sentence, they aren't extensively used, and they are well cited. If it comes down to either quoting the source, or paraphrasing so far from it that it's intent and meaning is totally obscured, it seems to me that quoting is preferable. Does anyone else think that this quote: "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." is too long?Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly renamed the above section to avoid confusion so that the Q&A here can be properly threaded; I also am not certain of the protocol. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, to answer the above, this is why we are getting nowhere...asking "is this OK?" without any context of where or how it could be used is not very helpful. (The above quote might be OK in some places, but may not be in others). I think that saying things in one's own words is better encyclopedic style, Wysong does not explain why she thinks "intent and meaning is totally obscured" - and refuses to do anything but offer direct quotes in such a way as to render them rather meaningless. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wysong is misstating the situation, I have actually repeatedly referred Wysong to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO. I hadn't yet pointed her to WP:PARAPHRASE. And this diff proves that Wysong DOES know about all of the above and is engaged in a certain about of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The reason I have not been comfortable with Wysong's style is because of context - she is prone to say "expert foo said '..." a lengthy quote with little introductory material. Then the next sentence will be "expert foobar said '...'" followed by another lengthy quote. Then, she may add some sort of summary that is at best synth and often OR but definitely not supported by the quotations. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since MontanaBW seems to have conceded here that the Dobie quote is not too lengthy, now we need to address the second concern of mine which is that it really doesn't apply to the horses subject to the Act the article is about. I DO agree with MontanaBW that it is a good idea to have the discussion, as the BLM states (not very well I'm afraid), the "millions" number is frequently misunderstood to apply to the geographical place and historical time of the subject horses. So, I'd like to expand upon his statement in something like the following:Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources [1][2][3] say that millions of feral horses, having been captured from the Spanish, dispersed by the Native Americans,[4] and escaped to the wild, once roamed in western North America. Tom L McKnight stated that the population would have peaked in the late 1700's or early 1800's, and that the "best guesses apparently lie between two and five million".[5] According to J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[6] De Steiguer stated that Dobie's lower guess is still "subject to question" as to being too high, but agreed with Dobie and McKnight that highest populations were found in the southern Great Plains and California,[7] where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the horses originated.[8] During the latter part of the 1800s, most of these horses were were rounded up and trailed north and east with the longhorns, to be sold to farmers and settlers.[9][A]Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^"On page 104 of The Official Horse Breed Standards Guide", Lynghaug stated that numbers declined due to "competition with cattle and sheep for food and resources" Although sources agree that mustangs were routinely killed to free up the limited forage for more desirable livestock on public rangelands, Lynghaugh's comment that "as the West became more populated" is more indicative of the reason for the earlier and more drastic population decline. The horses were displaced as settlers fenced off and plowed up land to plant crops. There are very few public rangelands left in the regions where the vast numbers of horses used to run free.
This discussion strives for a neutral point of view, bringing in some of the more well known but less reliable sources such as Ryden and Lynghauh, as well as some of the lesser known but more scholarly ones to balance out some of the misinformation. It is important to make the distinction of time and place, to avoid misleading the reader into thinking there was once millions of horses where they are found today. Where they are found today, the public rangelands in the desert regions that could not support traditional settlement and homesteading, could not support those kinds of numbers.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am answering the above and the mediator's comments in "second statement below. That said, from article talk, Wysong seems to have the notion that the only wild horses in the west outside of Texas were in Nevada, which simply isn't true. Wysong consistently fails to clarify exactly what her beef is with this article other than IDONTLIKEIT. (The Sherrets source notes "11 western states," and as an aside, this is where tens of millions of bison once roamed, so yes, the American west could easily support over a million wild horses) Not sure what the issue is, no one is arguing that Nevada had a million horses Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "eleven western states" Sherrets is talking about are the ones fully or partially west of the Continental Divide, shown by this map depicting public lands. Very few bison roamed there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Continental divide is shown by the red line [1], the wild horses ran mostly east of the divide and in the Great Basin (also shown on the map). The horse is adapted to dry steppe and semi-arid regions; they definitely weren't running in the mountains. That is a disingenuous statement. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we were talking about where "tens of millions of bison once roamed"Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by volunteer moderator
I'm so sorry to both of you, I had to attend to a family emergency yesterday, let me take a look over your points and I'll be back here in a bit. Kharkiv07Talk 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you both make valid points and I do have a few thoughts on how you could compromise, but I'd like to see what you two have to say before I give any suggestions. Keeping in mind what was said earlier, I'd like you to try to reach neutral ground, because it doesn't seem either of you are completely right. So, I'd like you both to say what you think a reasonable compromise is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Kharkiv07Talk 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by SheriWysong
First, I would like to hear a reasoned explanation as to WHY Montanabw does not believe it is necessary to put the "millions" number in proper context. The only reason I have been given is that it isn't relevant. What isn't relevant is the number itself, so if it's going to be put in the article, it should be put into context. I could go either way-just leave the "millions" number out and start perhaps with the 1934 number of 150,000, but if it's going to stay in, there needs to be further discussion of it similar to what I put in the above paragraph.Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by Montanabw
The above suggestion is the same basic thing we have been arguing about for a month! The article is about the legislation, not an exhaustive history of the Mustang. Wysong is just offering her same material again - poorly phrased, improperly sourced, etc... I already noted above that the main reason the "two million" figure is in there at all is because the BLM (a RS) notes it is the most common number used in the basic argument that "millions" of wild horses were reduced to thousands by the time the legislation was passed -- how many "millions" is not able to be determined, everyone is guessing (And Lynghaug is not an "expert" in this context - that book is a horse breeds encyclopedia that has some credibility, but here her estimated numbers are not relevant other than the general statement already in the article). To go down this rabbit trail is to put WP:UNDUE weight on a whole bunch of speculative figures. There may or may not be some room for this expanded material in the Mustang article (though not phrased, formatted or cited as Wysong has it), but not in this article. I am open to a) A minor rephrase of Dobie, maybe with the quote, it all depends on the wording; and b) adding in the 150K figure on the Taylor Grazing Act, as that is also pretty RS and relevant. Give me a bit and I'll post an alternative suggestion here. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, because the current article is GA- class, I am reluctant to make large changes. However, here is the drama paragraph in question ( some formatting isn't included, this is just a cut and paste - refer to article for formatting, wikilinks and detail on citations):
No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West, according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a "guess." However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and any estimate is speculative.[6] However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8] After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land. The two agencies were concerned that there were too many horses on the land, which led to overgrazing and significant soil erosion. Ranchers wanted the feral horses removed because they were grazing on land ranchers wanted to use for their own livestock. Hunters were worried that as horses degraded range land, hunting species would also suffer. It was not clear that there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses. Nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM) paid private contractors to kill Mustangs and permitted their carcasses to be used for pet food.[9] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9]
I propose the following rewording: I am striking out what will be removed from the article and underlining what will be added, non-formatted text is unchanged. (any numbered footnotes not noted here are the ones in the current article):
No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West., according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a "guess." Historian J. Frank Dobie stated, "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."<ref>Dobie, p. 108</ref> However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative.[6] However, horseHorse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act<ref name=Sherrets>{{cite web|last1=Sherrets|first1=Harold "Bud"|title=Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lT7xAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA40|website=The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress|publisher=United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior|accessdate=24 March 2015|date=1984}}</ref>After the mid-1930s, After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land. The two agencies were concerned that there were too many horses on the land, which led to overgrazing and significant soil erosion. Ranchers wanted the feral horses removed because they were grazing on land ranchers wanted to use for their own livestock. Hunters were worried that as horses degraded range land, hunting species would also suffer. It was not clear that there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses. Nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM) paid private contractors to kill Mustangs and permitted their carcasses to be used for pet food.[9] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9]
We're headed in the right direction. But, I don't think that because the article passed GA is a good reason to not make the necessary changes. However, if Montanabw is opposed to a history that is comprehensive enough to bring the Dobie quote into context (since Dobie was talking about the population in 1848) maybe we should just leave it out entirely. Just because the BLM makes a statement about it doesn't mean it belongs here.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could start the history here: By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming[1], where, for the most part, they are found today[2] and where, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers once allowed to run free on the public rangelands to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use.[3] In 1899, the State of Nevada began efforts to reduce the numbers of unbranded horses on the range,[4] but by 1900, when the numbers may have reached a peak of 100,000 feral or semi-feral horses in the state,[5] the demand for horses in the Boer War then World War I reduced the oversupply.[6] However, after World War I, as motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace,[7] horse populations on the range were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for use as beasts of burden and they began to be rounded up to be slaughtered for chicken food.[8][6] A few years later, in 1924, demand for horsemeat increased for use in pet food.[9] By 1934, when the pressure on them intensified because the federal government got into the act of controlling their numbers,[10] there were approximately 150,000 feral horses on public land in the 11 Western States.[11] After decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed, which had led to the passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act.Sharp, Lee, (1984) [12]Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error: The named reference McKnight513 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
@Montanabw: Hmm... I do have some suggestions but I'm going to give you another chance to respond before I offer anything. Kharkiv07Talk 23:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my suggestions for now, but am open to comment on the specific existing paragraph from the article and if more could be added or changed. I am not interested in any of what is proposed by Wysong above. The material Wysong wants to add MIGHT be a topic for discussion at the Mustang article, and the map is cool, but you can see exactly why we are having problems: Her content is unfocused, not very relevant, too long, inadequately sourced, WRONGLY sourced, quite a bit of it speculative, and too focused on Nevada. The entire World War I bit is just a red herring (and speculative) - plus Sherrets DOES NOT verify that material - he says zip about WWI (read the source!), and her last sentence is both unsourced and WP:SYNTH because there are also historians who claim the TGA was passed not because of overgrazing but because ranchers wanted to push nomadic grazers off public land, a modern-day variant of the Enclosure movement. These historians allege that the ranchers overgrazed the public domain just as bad as the semi-nomadic herders who let their sheep and cattle run loose; I am not arguing that one way or the other, but I am merely making a point - we most certainly cannot adequately discuss the complex Taylor Grazing Act in THIS article and shouldn't overgeneralize about it. THIS article is about the Wild and Free-Ranging Horses and Burros Act of 1971, and needs to stay focused on it! The history is simple: Once upon a time there were a lot more horses roaming free, then the TGA authorized their removal, between 1934 and about 1959 there was a dramatic decrease leading to legislation to protect the horses to some extent, which was insufficient, so the 1971 Act was passed. This is a simple and straightforward history and doesn't need to go off down a bunch of bunny trails. @Kharkiv07:, if you have any questions to ask of either of us before offering your opinion, feel free to ask. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriWysong: I'd like to go back to Montanabw's proposed changes, as it as it seems to have some compromise in it. Sheri can you give specific reasons you don't like it and propose changes to that wordingnotand not a whole new section, you said you believed that was progress, so I think we can work with that to try to make a reasonable compromise, I'd just like you to offer some suggestions. Kharkiv07Talk
I have stated several times, that I don't like using Dobie's number without context. When we started, it was even left out that the numbers referred to Texas, so it is progress that now we can at least quote him rather than totally change the context of his statement. BUT it still doesn't say when Dobie said the peak occurred, which was around 1848. In actuality, the horses Dobie was talking about are not the ones subject to the Act. In 1848, there were virtually no horses in the geographic locations where they are found today. That's just a start to what's wrong with the existing paragraph. For one thing, the whole second half of it is practically uncited. Pretty much everything that Montanabw claims is wrong with suggestions is wrong with the existing paragraph. And, mine is just a rough draft. Yes, some of the sources are missing, but that's because I just put it up as a suggestion of content that could be included. So, yes, maybe since the existing paragraph is actually the one on the article page, I should just go through and point out all the problems. I didn't want to do that, I thought maybe we could do this in a calm rational manner without going ballistic over each other's suggestions, but apparently that isn't possible. I'll do it shortly.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West.[citation needed]According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but, "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[1] However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative.[2] Horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[3] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. [4]After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land.[citation needed] The two agencies were concerned that there were too many horses on the land, which led to overgrazing and significant soil erosion.[citation needed] Ranchers wanted the feral horses removed because they were grazing on land ranchers wanted to use for their own livestock.[citation needed] Hunters were worried that as horses degraded range land, hunting species would also suffer.[citation needed] It was not clear that there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses.[citation needed] Nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property.[citation needed] From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM) paid private contractors to kill Mustangs and permitted their carcasses to be used for pet food.[5] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[5]Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Dobie, p. 108 (this is a red herring, since these number applies to horses in a different geographic area than those subject to the Act in 1848 there were, for the most part, no horses where those subject to the Act are found)
^if this is supposed to be sourced to the BLM Myths and Facts page, it goes WAAAYYYY beyond the source
^Lynghaug, p. 104. (Lynhaug is wrong-more reliable sources say differently-like the enclosure of the open range which Monatnabw claims is the cause of the Taylor Grazing Act. Those range wars occurred several decades earlier, and the fencing that occurred was instrumental in the decline of the horses)
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
^ ab"The Fight to Save Wild Horses."Time. July 12, 1971. Accessed 2011-05-23. This source simplifies the issue, more reliable sources point out the horses BELONGED to the ranchers.
Can we find a source that fills in some of those citation needed tags? Kharkiv07Talk 23:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll see what Montanabw can come up with. But, just for full disclosure, I did go back and add in several citations on my paragraph.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the material tagged other than Dobie is cited to the 1971 Time magazine article; I don't have access to it now, but could dig it up to verify later. The tag-bombing is not needed, the material could be re-sourced to different sources that say similar things, but I'm hatting the above because it is confusing the situation. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the Time article. It most definitely does not provide a source for all that precedes it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a compromise I came up with that might address both side concerns for the first part of the paragraph...
In 1990, the General Accounting Office stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges." [1] The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Myths and Facts webpage characterizes that number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848[2] and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.[3]. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming[4], where, for the most part, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free to graze on the openrangelands (open range) to be rounded up as needed for sale or use[5] and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years.[6]Lynn Wysong (talk)
And here we go again. Long, boring, terrible writing (and she's been sandboxing this for days, so no excuses here), introducing sentences with expert foo says, and so on. Wysong goes off on these endless tangents and everything she writes has to be double checked because she is really bad about WP:SYNTH, and all attempts to educate her about proper editing are once again mostly for naught; she simply shifts blame to others and will not be responsible for her own work. However, if it will tone done the drama, I am OK with the GAO source for the two million estimate instead of Dobie, but no wording changes other than to RESTORE the "early 20th Century" text - which was in there in the first place before Wysong showed up! (and which, probably they got from Dobie anyway, as the BLM says so. And Wysong is wrong that Dobie's two million was from 1848 - read the excerpt - he simply suggested on one page that that the post-Mexican War period might have been the peak in Texas, and on another page he suggests the two million was the peak number ever, admitted it was a guess, and placed half of the population outside of Texas. All the rest of her verbiage is not needed, is way too much detail for an article about the legislation and so on. (Some of it MIGHT be suitable for the Mustang article) I am offering compromise - again, but I am not going to keep "bidding against myself" when Wysong keeps offering the same nonsense that has been being discussed for the last month. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what Dobie says: "Until the end of the Mexican War in 1848, wild horses multiplied, reaching about this time their numerical climax". (page 107). Maybe, you ought to actually have the book in front of you, instead of just making up whatever you feel like.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriWysong and Montanabw:Both of you, PLEASE comment on the content,NOTthe contributors. Now that I have that out of the way, I'd like to go back to Sheri's version that she proposed earlier with all of the {{citation needed}} if Montanabw can find citations, can we agree on that version? Kharkiv07Talk 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize @Kharkiv07:. I AM TRYING to keep my cool and keep this focused on content. To answer your question, however, even if Montanabw could find sources, it still would not address my concerns that the Dobie statement is not in context. That is why I made the subsequent suggestion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West. According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but, "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[1]however no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative.[2] Horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[3] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. [4]After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land.[citation needed] The two agencies were concerned that there were too many horses on the land, which led to overgrazing and significant soil erosion. Ranchers wanted the feral horses removed because they were grazing on land ranchers wanted to use for their own livestock. Hunters were worried that as horses degraded range land, hunting species would also suffer. It was not clear that there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses. Nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM) paid private contractors to kill Mustangs and permitted their carcasses to be used for pet food.[5] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.
^Dobie, p. 108 (this is a red herring, since these number applies to horses in a different geographic area than those subject to the Act in 1848 there were, for the most part, no horses where those subject to the Act are found)
^if this is supposed to be sourced to the BLM Myths and Facts page, it goes WAAAYYYY beyond the source
^Lynghaug, p. 104. (Lynhaug is wrong-more reliable sources say differently-like the enclosure of the open range which Monatnabw claims is the cause of the Taylor Grazing Act. Those range wars occurred several decades earlier, and the fencing that occurred was instrumental in the decline of the horses)
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
^"The Fight to Save Wild Horses."Time. July 12, 1971. Accessed 2011-05-23. This source simplifies the issue, more reliable sources point out the horses BELONGED to the ranchers.
I'm not in anyway making a suggestion here, I just want to know if you'd be more comfortable with something like this? Kharkiv07Talk 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Not really, because part of what is important is the fact that at least half of the "2 million" was in Texas, which is not where they are now.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or, I guess I should say, most of the "2 million" were geographically located in areas that are not subject to the Act.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriWysong: What can be changed in that paragraph (and by changed I mean add or delete a sentence or two, not fundamentally rewriting it) that would make you happy? I'm sticking with this because when Montanabw first proposed it you said we were making progress and then you proposed it. Kharkiv07Talk 22:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kharkiv07:I didn't "propose" it. You asked me to go back to it, so I went back and tried to make it plain what I thought was (still) wrong with it, even though we HAD made progress. It still has a LOT of problems.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, I guess I'm a little perplexed. Why can't it be "fundamentally" rewritten if necessary?Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can, we were just making progress so I figured that we'd keep moving forward with that. Kharkiv07Talk 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two disputes going on here, one is the article in question, the other is the nature of the Mustang article and it is important to keep these disputes separate. Here I am ONLY dealing with the Wild and Free-Ranging Horses and Burros Act of 1971 article, which is already GA-class, and I think it is NOT in need of a "fundamental rewrite." Some refinement is always useful, and I already tried to do so - until the article was locked down for all the reasons discussed elsewhere. Wysong's only real complaint appears to be in the history section I have placed here, so I'm trying to fix it. I have a new version below, and I would appreciate that yes, we stay focused on THAT topic alone. And no, I am absolutely opposed to Wysong's proposals here because they take the whole article off on a tangent that is not appropriate or structured to the content of that particular article. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
Proposed new paragraph, I have tried to keep as much of the original phrasing of the GA-approved version as possible. I have included all sources, properly formatted, including those currently in the article and those added new. No underlining or strikeout, we can use diffs to compare changes. "Lynhaug" is a minor typo we can fix later - source is: Lynghaug, Fran. The Official Horse Breeds Standards Guide. Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2009. It's also in Google books here and I suggest that the URL be linked in the article's bibliography once we agree on the rest. To address the "cn" issues, I needed to remove some material, add new bits, and reword some of the rest of the paragraph to fit sources available. I used the GAO source Wysong found and I am presuming Wyman, et. al. will also be acceptable to Wysong for the purpose I am using it here, as she suggested their use in the first place (they are old, but with minor tweaks to the phrasing, they source the statements we have). The Time source is behind a paywall, but I have found a way to access it, and where I have cited it, it is directly verifiable from the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West.[1] However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative.[2] However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[3] Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter.[1] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.[4] While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses,[5]
By 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land.[6] The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[7] After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.[8]
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. p. 40. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
Thanks for the section break, I haven't been doing a good job with that and for that I apologize, @SheriWysong: comments on this suggestion? Kharkiv07Talk 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks like a fundamental rewrite to me, which is fine. Here's my suggestion, maybe some merge of the two?Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" [1] (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848[2] and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.[3]. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming[4], where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the openrangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use[5] and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years.[6] As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states began to encourage their removal under various estray laws.[7] Horses were eliminated by shooting them, capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter[1] for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II, even human food. (McKnight) As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range.[8] By 1934, when the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) was passed, there were approximately 150,000 feral horses on the public grazing lands in the 11 Western States.[9] As of 1900, there had been an estimated 100,000 feral or semi-feral horses in Nevada alone,[10] indicating that reproduction was not keeping up with their removal.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
After World War II, the use of airplanes to roundup horses became commonplace.(Ryden Page 211) Although jurisdiction of unbranded horses remained under the state's estray laws, the BLM, which under the authority of the TGA, had jurisdiction over the public grazing lands, would issue permits to mustangers to chase and roundup horses by air(Ryden, page 217). Citizens were concerned that the roundups were abusive and inhumane[1] and the numbers of feral horses were dwindling, being down to an estimated 33,000 by 1958.(Ryden page ?) Led by Velma Bronn Johnston—better known as "Wild Horse Annie," a secretary at an insurance firm in Reno, Nevada—animal welfare and horse advocates lobbied for passage of a federal law to prevent the use of airplanes or other motorized vehicles to chase them.[8] Their efforts were successful. On September 8, 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Hunting Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands Act (Public Law 86- 234, also known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act"), which banned the hunting of feral horses on federal land from aircraft or motorized vehicles.[11]Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
^Amaral, Mustang, Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses p. 24
^"Eisenhower Signs Bill Protecting Wild Horses." New York Times. September 9, 1959.
(big sigh) OK. Content. NO. No merge, you have taken one tightly written paragraph and replaced it with two boring, badly written ones. The ":two million" figure stays, one way or the other because it is (as I have said TEN MILLION TIMES) it is the most common figure quoted and we need to explain it. We already have stuff on Wild Horse Annie in the next paragraph, so let's settle this one before we go on. Ditto for the airplanes stuff. ONE PARAGRAPH AT A TIME. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made it clear I included the second paragraph in the article. Since you have found a number for the 1950's we can go with that. Mine comes from my own webpage, which I made 10 years ago, and regrettably did not cite the source, although I believe it is the 1970 Ryden version.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So you're okay with the proposal? Or just the number? Kharkiv07Talk 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just the number. I still think we the content is debatable.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
In what way? I'm just trying to gather as much specific information as possible. Kharkiv07Talk 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw's version still does not put the "2 million" number into context.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
And that's your only issue with it? If that was fixed you'd be happy? Kharkiv07Talk 00:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, (chuckle) that's not my "only" issue, but if we could substitute the first portion of Montanabw's paragraph with what I have suggested, I could grit my teeth and bear it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Her first sentence is the "Expert foo says endless long direct quote." It's poor writing. I've said this over and over and over! I fail to see why Wysong has such a burr under the saddle about the context of the two million figure - the precise when/where is not really relevant here at all because ALL ESTIMATES prior to at least 1930 (and maybe even the 1930 numbers, but at least they are the government's guess) are a wild guess anyway - the point is that Dobie's "two million" is the most common figure cited by various folks for how many wild horses may have once existed, and hence needs merely to be stated as such. If Wysong doesn't agree with the 1900 date, it can go; we can just say something vague like "prior to 1900" or whatever. The 2008 GAO "mid-1800s" comment is in a submittal memo, we can't call it "backtracking" - as it's not even in the main report. The reality is that they are all pulling numbers out their butt. We are spending way too much time on this! Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"mid 1800's" sounds an awful lot like "1848" to me...Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, as far as "content is debatable," put up or shut up, I'm sick of this hide the ball nonsense. Also "Mine comes from my own webpage, which I made 10 years ago," is WP:SELFPUB. And probably POV-pushing. Care to share a link? Montanabw(talk)
Sheri already agreed to use your number, so that's not of concern. Here's the thing, Montanabw has a source for the two million, if you can present a reliable source that says something different it would really help. Kharkiv07Talk 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to take a break from further comment on this for a little while, I'll be back tomorrow or Monday. Ping me if something substantial is proposed. My position is clear: Let's get that one paragraph settled, I've just busted my ass to try and stay true to the GA-passed structure and format, if there is a problem with my last version, let's look at it, not another version. This is not the place for an entire historical analysis of the wild horse in the west; it's merely an article on one piece of legislation. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments on Montanabw's Rewritten Section
At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. "The beginning of the 20th century" is wrong as even the GAO stated in an later statement[1]
"Beginning of the 20th century" is clearly debatable. I propose "prior to 1900" - covers it, no need to split hairs before then because it's all a guess anyway. --MONTANABW
How about just stating it as the sources say? Either 1848 or the mid 1800s?Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, Wrong. There are two "scientific estimates" for Nevada in 1900 and 1911 and thus the two million figure is speculative. It also applies to a different geographical area than where the horses subject to the Act were located.[2]
POV-pushing for Nevada again. (There are plenty of free-roaming horses outside of Nevada) No source has ever been given by Wysong that there was a "scientific" census in Nevada in the early 1900s - sources previously discussed at talk are also non-scientific guesstimates. ANY ESTIMATE PRIOR TO GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED or SCIENCE-BASED SURVEYS IS SPECULATIVE. Even if Nevada did some kind of survey, one state's numbers are rather irrelevant anyway. --MONTANABW
Well, if you look at the map, Nevada is the State with the largest number of horses=both in 1900 and today. Not POV pushing, but estimates for Nevada are much relevant to the Act than estimates for Texas. And, what is your basis for stating that only a government based estimate is valid?19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. The source is talking about the horses in the geographic location and time as those above. The reason Lynhaug gives for their decline is only in a small way correct. They were mostly displaced as the land was settled in the latter part of the 1800's, but in the meantime they were also rounded up and domesticated[3]
Lynghaug is summarized, her statement in the context of her book covers the entire west, not just a limited area. I don't want to closely paraphrase or quote her, I agree that the problem is that ranchers moved in and viewed horses as competing with sheep and cattle for forage and water, the cattle and sheep themselves, not so much. A suggested rephrase that is neither a copyvio paraphrase nor a long direct quote is something I'm open to. But we need a simple overview, not a lot of detail for this article. ONE SENTENCE.--MONTANABW
There are other sources out there that explain it better. But, why explain it at all? We're talking about horses that, for the most part, aren't affected by the Act. If you want to keep it concise, leave it for the reader to go back to the sources, like Dobie.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The first three sentences here are really irrelevant to the Act. If the 2 million number is to be brought in, it must be brought into context.
I've explained this repeatedly, the context is that it's used constantly. I'm not beating my head against the wall to say it again here. --MONTANABW
Yes, the number is used constantly. That's why it needs to explained. Believe me, my head is just as sore as your's is. The 2 million does not apply to the geographic place and time of the horses affected by the Act.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter. the first part of the sentence applies more to the earlier horses on the southern Great Plains. Ranchers did shoot a lot of horses after they had fenced off their holdings. But, in the case of the horses under the jurisdiction of the Act, just leave out who shot them because they were shot mostly by bounty hunters, first under bounty by the States, then the FS[1]
This is straight from the GAO report and is an appropriate summary. Horses were shot throughout the west, the history is complex.--MONTANABW
Yes it is complex. And the GAO had some errors. One of those was the timing of the two million population, the other is that it was ranchers that shot the horses subject to the Act. There is no sense in perpetuating errors.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act.There may have been more on FS lands, but it appears that by the time, the FS had been mostly successful in removing the unbranded horses. Also, the 150,000 number sounds like Sherretts meant for it to included unbranded but claimed, not just feral, horses.
So...? What's the problem here? The number is free-roaming animals, always did, so if owned or unowned is irrelevant. (Also as Wysong points out elsewhere, the Forest Service only had jurisdiction over its own lands --MONTANABW
When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow.This comes out of nowhere. should either be explained more fully, or left out.
Sourced to Sherrets, explains why the issue became an issue.--MONTANABW
It needs more explanation of the TGALynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. This sort of comes out of nowhere. By 1934, Ranchers had been allowing unbranded horses to go feral for 50 years, and the States had been trying to control their numbers since the turn of the century. It just got worse after 1934, when the ranchers stopped claiming unbranded horses.[4]
Again, sourced to Sherrets, not sure the problem here. Is there a point?--MONTANABW
It may seem obvious to you, but not to the reader.19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, there's no lead in to "land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses" also, there's no page number. And, the reason for the follow up "U.S. Grazing Service began to...remove horses from public land" was more because the horses were "in trespass". They were a non-native species, and there was no concept of managing them as "wild". The job of the Grazing Service was to permit livestock grazing on the public land and horses were livestock. If no one claimed ownership of them and paid a grazing fee for them, it was part of the mission of the agency to remove them, just as the BLM attempted to do last year with Cliven Bundy's cows. Later on, when the removal became controversial, was when the debate started as to whether or not the horses were causing resource damage. I suggest this point be brought up in the next paragraph[5]
It is cited - to Page 211- read the footnotes. I looked for a source to verify existing language of the article. It's a summary. Propose a SHORT rephrase. --MONTANABW
By 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. This practice was short-lived. After the outbreak of WWII, resources were diverted towards the War. Wyman first published his book in 1945, so what he wrote does not necessarily apply to what happened after WWII. I have found no sources that say that after the War, (right after which the grazing service became the BLM) the BLM did anything but encourage and assist in the removal of horses, which were, until 1971, under the jurisdiction of the States.[6]
The Government paid some Mustangers, that's the point. The TIME Article states, "From 1934 to 1963, the Bureau of Land Management and its predecessor agency condoned and even paid for the killing of mustangs." I am open to a proposed rephrase that adds the TIME source, or another source. Whatever. --MONTANABW
The agency may have "condoned" the killing of mustangs until 1963, but there's no source that backs up the assertion that it paid to round them up past 1940. So how about this: "Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock"[6] the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land[6], but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased."[7]
The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. This happened prior to the TGA, which did not apply to National Forests[8]
If the USFS stuff is going to be an issue, it can be moved or chopped. I DGAF, was just trying to show respect for the previous editors of this article who put it in there in the first place. It's relevant to the article overall, it can be placed whereever the chronology fits --MONTANABW
Okay, and I think WWII is a good place to end this paragraph and transition. It wasn't until afterwards that the real controversy started.19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the demands of the pet food market. The pet food market started in 1924. However, with the Depression being over and the increased prosperity after WWII, the pet food market increased significantly, which led to it being profitable for mustangers to round up the horses with no financial outlay by the government. The increase in the rate of decline of horses was due more to the increased availability of aircraft and motorized vehicles after WWII for use in rounding up them up. As the source for the "25,000" number implies, this is when the largest decrease would have happened. My guess is that there was probably still close to 150,000 horses at the end of WWII, and that it was about 20% of that about the time of the Wild Horse Annie Act.
The Curnett and Sherrett sources both discuss the significant increase following WWII; I fail to see a problem here. Would "increased demands" improve matters? --MONTANABW
By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. I think this statement, and the previous one, belongs in the next paragraph.[9]
The Curnett sentence is a concluding sentence and initiates a transition to the next paragraph, which discusses the Wild Horse Annie Act. It's called good writing style or "sparkling prose" - this is something Wysong is unfamiliar with. --MONTANABW
Wow, I was actually starting to think you might actually be able to refrain from making a nasty comment about me.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I knew nothing I said would be accepted, but I answered Wysong's points in the thread above with my name signed at each comment, but not with tildes so as to avoid confusing things. @Kharkiv07: I have repeatedly been open to SHORT, CONCISE, and SOURCED material that isn't "extrapolated" isn't SYNTH and isn't OR. I'm still waiting. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. p. 40. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
^ abcWyman, Walker Demarquis (1963). The Wild Horse of the West. University of Nebraska Press. p. 170. Retrieved 28 March 2015. Cite error: The named reference "Wyman" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference McKnight513 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Okay guys I'm just going to see if I can combine both of what you want, give me an hour or so. Kharkiv07Talk 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My suggested compromise
@Montanabw and SheriWysong: We've made progress, and I want you both to remember no matter what you can't both get all of what you've want! Just from the last section, I've done by best to combine what you both wanted. If we can't agree on this or something similar this could go on for months, and I think we want to end it here so if on one or two points you can just grit your teeth and bear it would be great. I'm going to give you both one comment on something you absolutely can't bear, and I do not want you commenting on the others comment until I get a chance to respond to each and try to fit them in. Kharkiv07Talk 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Change date to mid 1800s
While no scientifc estimates have been made for the country as a whole, states such as Nevada had rougly (we can add other states too!)
Horses were shot by people such as farmers and bounty hunters
Keep the Lynhaug reason, but if Sheri can find another source that can be included also
Keep the number on public land unless we can get more sources which indisputably change it
Keep the line about ranchers letting their horses run free, but Sheri can add a clairfying line
Same with the "While it was not clear line...", Sheri can clarify
If Sheri can find a source that says that the practice of removing horses was short lived, then that can be added after
Line about giving rangers notice can be chopped, or moved if either of you want to there doesn't seem to be dispute there
Insert "increased demand" in the pet food section
Keep the 1950s quote where it is
So, let's try to put see how we want to handle the "2 million" number. This is what the BLM says about it " This figure has no scientific basis. In a book titled The Mustangs (1952) by J. Frank Dobie, the historian noted that no scientific estimate of wild horse numbers was made in the 19th century or early 20th century. He went on to write: 'All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West.' (Emphasis added.) Mr. Dobie's admitted "guess" of no more than two million mustangs has over the years been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html My guess is that it was 25 years ago, in the GAO report, where it was first said Two million wild horses roamed the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. So, if, as Montanabw says, and from what I have seen she is right, that "the two million is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates" it seems like the thing to do is to bring out the source of the "myth" the fact that the GAO later backed off statement, and the BLM's explanation. That's why I suggested this:Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" [1] (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848[2] and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.[3].Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me, that if we have to use the 2 million number, and I don't necessarily think that we shouldn't, this puts it into proper perspective and context. The reality is, by 1900, there were very few "true" (spanish) mustangs left. In the 50 years from their estimated "peak" population, they had been captured, displaced and/or shot by settlers, etc. By 1900, most horses that were running wild were unbranded rancher's horses running on what was left of the public domain lands (mostly in the Great Basin and Red Deserts), and there wasn't nearly 2 million of them. Maybe 250,000. It is the descendants of these horses that are subject to the Act. This is an important distinction, because of the misconception that the desert areas where the horses are now once supported millions of them. It didn't. It was the optimal horse habitat on the southern Great Plains and San Jaquin Valley that MAY have supported two million of them, but it's doubtful there were even that many there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am NOT going to address the above tl;dr here. I've already said what I have to say about it, and Wysong is just repeating herself - again. I will not comment further, except to say that this focus on Nevada is a red herring (yes, the largest wild horse numbers TODAY are there, but that's not the point) so can we drop that damn stick? (And the 250,000 is a completely made up number, a month ago, Wysong "extrapolated" that is was 200,000 and that was what got the article locked down for edit-warring in the first place) Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line: There is no source for any population estimates between 1848 and 1900 (There is an estimate for the late 1700's, early 1800's). You like the 1848 number, but you don't like the date. You don't like the 1900 number, but you like the date. You can't finesse the date of the number you like to try to make it sound more like the date you like. So, which number and date do you want to use? I'll work with it either way but whatever you chose, we have to disclose the number, date and geographic location.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You misstate my position. I don't agree that either the 1848 date or the two million number is "true", only a number that needs to be mentioned (see WP:VNT) - what I have been saying all along is that the two million figure, stated by Dobie and analyzed by the BLM and the GAO, is the most common figure used by people who want to argue how many wild horses may have once existed, all we need to say is that "maybe" there were once two million horses in the American West and then MOVE ON! You have been making this unbelievably complicated. The details and context is grist for Wild horse preservation, and I mean that seriously. And now what "source" is there for 1700? This is brand new... are you moving goalposts again or just making up things? Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw's biggest complaint
I can mostly live with the above suggestions. I am pretty strongly opposed to getting too into the nitty-gritty of statistics beyond the basics I proposed because the numbers are all over the place; the two million number is Dobie's "guess" but it is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates and so needs to be mentioned I am vehemently opposed to adding anything specific to Nevada (or any other state) as pretty much because ALL the numbers pre-1934 or so were highly speculative, we don't have statistics to cover all states, and so cherry-picking data can be misleading. I'm uncomfortable with "mid-1800s" though if we want to cite to the second GAO transmittal letter, I think it's iffy, but I could live with it; I'd prefer something more vague such as "prior to 1900" or some similar wording. In short, this is an article about the 1971 Act, it doesn't need an entire history of the feral horse in America here. A cursory overview of the early history is adequate, covering the TGA and Wild Horse Annie Acts are relevant as predecessor legislation, more than that is going to bog things down. Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Sheri's biggest complaint
I think we're actually collaborating, on some level. I wasn't trying to tear montanabw's suggestion down, but making some clarifications and pointing out some inaccuracies so that it could be improved. My biggest complaint is the insistence that we not make fundamental changes. I came into this because I thought fundamental changes needed to be made. I've spent the last month, here and on the mustang article trying to convince people that what is on the pages are common misconceptions (like there were millions of horses roaming free at the turn of the century. I think that that number endures because people don't take into account the reproductive capacity of horses. Yes, there were probably close to a million horses removed over the ensuing 50 years. But, if you have just 250,000 horses, and they produce 50,000 foals each year, taking into account other ways horses are "eliminated" you could remove 20,000 horses a year for 50 years-which would be one million horses, but the population itself was never close to one million). I kept getting accused of "synth" and "OR" when in actuality, there's nothing new or unpublished about what I was saying, it was just that I was dealing with people that had never really read the academic and scholarly works that are out there. It is, as Montanabw stated, complex. It's not just a matter of the "bad guys" vs the horses. So we have two choices: either go into a fairly detailed history, or try to write something that is brief, but not misleading or inaccurate. If the history needs to be fundamentally changed to do that (and we're headed down that road anyway), let's just bite the bullet and do it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to cite any of those scholarly journals in the articles? Kharkiv07Talk 14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying. The problem is that some of them aren't available online, and when you're dealing with skeptics, they doubt the veracity of what I've been saying. I happen to have a collection of books and other documents I've acquired over the years, but they aren't readily available.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@SheriWysong: Through various different means I have access to several online databases, care for me to look for any specific ones for you? Kharkiv07Talk 15:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...can you upload to a db, if I can come up with digital copies of public domain documents?Lynn Wysong (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am absolutely opposed to distracting the article with an extensive analysis of historic numbers; my proposal is to say - as do multiple accounts - that two million horses may have inhabited the American west prior to (whenever) and then move on to the actual main topic, which is the legislation and the history of the laws leading up to it. (I have repeatedly urged Wysong to look at Wild horse preservation, which is the article best suited for that particular analysis, but she seems to be uninterested, don't know why) And to argue numbers based the reproductive rate of feral horses today fails to take into account historical means of population reduction: predation, starvation, injury, etc. - today most predators have been dramatically reduced, and people cringe in horror if the horses starve... The Great Plains once supported tens of millions of Bison, and the entire American West in the same period certainly could support a couple million horses, at least in theory. Any argument that there were - or were not - "millions" of free-roaming horses in the west is going to be based on a significant level of speculation, guesstimates and scattered historical accounts; definitely more than we can assess in detail at THIS article. I do have access to a university library database, and though it's kind of a PITA (pain in the a--) for me to access, I probably can find anything that has been digitized if I have a complete citation. Also, Hathi Trust has a lot of things digitized. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@SheriWysong and Montanabw: My proposal is to go back to my suggestion, because I think that's as close as we're going to get, and put this matter to rest. If not we're going to be here forever and get nothing done and you'll both be unhappy with it. That being said, if Sheri can find a reliable source in the future for some of the numbers we should switch to that, as long as we're keeping the history section clear and concise. Kharkiv07Talk 22:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07:, shall I place a rewrite of what I think you want here for final approval? We can make minor tweaks from there! Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is intended as a working final draft. Please edit directly, without commentary, until everyone can agree on the wording. Here is how I addressed each: Montanabw(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Change date to mid 1800s - said "prior to 1900"
While no scientifc estimates have been made for the country as a whole, states such as Nevada had rougly (we can add other states too!) -- didn't do per above comment, I dispute that the Nevada figures were all that accurate, either.
Horses were shot by people such as farmers and bounty hunters --GAO source says "ranchers" and Sherrets source later in paragraph on management notes "Mustangers" and ranchers - don't think there was much "farming" in these areas. Some people were paid to round up or shoot wild horses, the word used in sources is "Mustangers" which, arguably, is a polite word for "bounty hunter" but it's complex.
Keep the Lynhaug reason, but if Sheri can find another source that can be included also --Lynghaug in
Keep the number on public land unless we can get more sources which indisputably change it - Kept 150,000 figure from Sherrets
Keep the line about ranchers letting their horses run free, but Sheri can add a clairfying line - kept, open to concise edits
Same with the "While it was not clear line...", Sheri can clarify --open to rephrase
If Sheri can find a source that says that the practice of removing horses was short lived, then that can be added after--changed "by 1939" to "in 1939" if that helps.
Line about giving rangers notice can be chopped, or moved if either of you want to there doesn't seem to be dispute there. --Keeping for now, pending further edits
Insert "increased demand" in the pet food section - done
Prior to 1900, as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West.[1] However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative.[2] However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[3] Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter.[1] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.[4]It was not clear if there were too many free-roaming horses and burros, or if the land was incurring damage due to their presence.[5]But because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock", by 1939 the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) had begun to directly hire people to remove horses from public land.[6] The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[7] After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.[8]
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. p. 40. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
@SheriWysong: If you make any changes please underline/strike through, it'll make it easier for all of us to follow. Kharkiv07Talk 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I agreed to this being a "final draft" that needs only minor tweaks...but I will try to work with it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The material below is tl;dr. Let's not keep rewriting this 10,000 times. Focus! Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, what we need here is focus. This is the only Wikipedia article I am working on right now. 'Iam focused. But, I feel like the Bill Murray character on Groundhog Day. Everyday is a new day-we never continue on with the collaboration that took place the day before. As far as the "2 million" figure, we're worse off. I'd rather go back to the earlier Dobie quote "Historian J. Frank Dobie stated, 'No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West.'"[1] that we agreed on earlier in the discussion (adding in, of course, the 1848 date), than what Montanabw wants to put in now.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And also, it is nothing more but Wysong again trying to insert her version instead of mine. That is not "compromise." I am taking Kharkiv07's suggestions and implementing them. Wysong, you need to ONLY add to what Kharkiv07 has asked above. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@SheriWysong: To be fair Sheri you did you say you were okay with my list... if you can put in footnotes and clarifications are you still not satisfied with the above version? Kharkiv07Talk 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I stuck with the list. (See the next section) I never agreed that this only needed "minor" tweaks. What we are still stuck on, is what brought us here in the first place. Montanabw's refusal to put the 2 million number in context. We have two sources that CLEARLY put that number in the mid-1800's, but Montanabw is trying to fudge the clear intent (even now knowing that the source retracted the earlier date) of those sources by saying "prior to 1900". Montanbw has never provided a good reason to not put that number into context (yes, I saw what was written last night in the "compromise" section-but it's just more obsfucation), but least now, Montanabw FINALLY gave specific criticism to what I had written, so I unhatted the discusssion that Montanabw tried to dismiss and will try to carry on from there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I added something I think Wysong wanted - the "trespass livestock" phrase. It's underlined. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Edited for better flow, changes also underlined. Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Revised Final Draft
Prior to 1900, as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West.[1] However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative.[2]In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" [1] (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848[3] and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.[4]. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[5]By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming[6], where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the openrangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use[7] and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years.[8] As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states, and then the newly formed U.S.Forest Service, began to encourage their removal under various estray laws.[9] Horses were eliminated by shooting them, capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter[1] for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II (WWII), even human consumption.[6] As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range.[10]Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter.[1]The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[10] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act(TGA) was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.[11]While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses,[12]Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock"[6] the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land[6], but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased[13]In 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land.[14]The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[10] After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.[15]Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
^Amaral, Mustang, Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses p. 133
^ abc"The Fight to Save Wild Horses."Time. July 12, 1971. Accessed 2011-05-23. Cite error: The named reference "TimeFight" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. p. 40. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" [1] (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 (Point 1)[2] and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.[3]. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.(Point #4)[4] By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming[5], where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the openrangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use (Point #6)[6] and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years.[7] As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states, and then the newly formed U.S.Forest Service, began to encourage their removal under various estray laws.[8] Horses were eliminated by shooting them, (Point #3) capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter[1] for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II (WWII), even human consumption.[5] The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.(Point #'s3 and 9)[9] As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range.[9] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act(TGA) was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.[10] Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock" (Point #7) the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land,[11] but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased (Point #8)[12] After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands (Point 10) of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. (Point 11)[13]Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
^Amaral, Mustang, Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses p. 133
^ ab"The Fight to Save Wild Horses". Time. July 12, 1971. Retrieved March 28, 2015. Cite error: The named reference "TimeFight" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Sherrets, Harold "Bud" (1984). "Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management". The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress. United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior. p. 40. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
^Wyman, Walker Demarquis (1963). The Wild Horse of the West. University of Nebraska Press. p. 170. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
Kharkiv07, I took out the parts that I meant to be struck in the paragraph above. A lot of what I had appeared to strike, I simply moved.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This above is totally confusing. What "same version" are we discussing? Kharkiv, can you please hat this section and go back to my "final draft" in the above subsection - which was intended to be edited in place? And FWIW, there is no way in hell I will ever agree to writing as boring and verbose as "In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that..." That's what those things called footnotes are for. Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I explained it all above, but will do so again: "This is what the BLM says about it " This figure has no scientific basis. In a book titled The Mustangs (1952) by J. Frank Dobie, the historian noted that no scientific estimate of wild horse numbers was made in the 19th century or early 20th century. He went on to write: 'All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West.' (Emphasis added.) Mr. Dobie's admitted "guess" of no more than two million mustangs has over the years been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html My guess is that it was 25 years ago, in the GAO report, where it was first said Two million wild horses roamed the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. So, if, as Montanabw says, and from what I have seen she is right, that "the two million is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates" it seems like the thing to do is to bring out the source of the "myth" the fact that the GAO later backed off statement, and the BLM's explanation." If you don't like the way I did it, please suggest a fix that actually reflects what the sources say. I am going to repeat your comment "there is no way in hell I will ever agree" to putting in the 2 million number that does not put it in context of time and geography.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess this will never be resolved unless I explain my problems with Wysong:
Thank you. This is what I've been asking for all along. Specific and constructive criticism.
By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming. Irrelevant and unacceptable McKnight is a 1964 work, the content is irrelevant. It also is Feral LivestockMontanabw(talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How could it possibly be irrelevant? And who cares if it's a 1964 work? We keep going back and forth on this. Wyman's book was published in 1945, yet you brought it in as a source (and I had to point out that you couldn't carry what he said past 1945). Unless you know of a credible source that refutes what an earlier source says (like the 2008 GAO source did with the 1990 one) there is no reason to dismiss a source because of its age.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You have inadequate sourcing for a broad statement about where "most" horses were in 1900; the numbers are speculative, and you exclude the Dakotas, you exclude eastern Wyoming, southern Idaho, Oregon, southeast Washington, and south-central Montana. The difference is that Wyman is available online and it is the best available source for material that is not terribly contested. And as I have said before, the GAO 2008 is not the report, it's in the transmittal letter, totally different type of context. Until I see why they made that change, it's fuzzy. "Prior to 1900" encompasses both. And how many times have I said this now?? Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[cited to Time] This is Ok. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The US Forest Service didn't exist in 1890, it wasn't formed until 1905. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So you've been sandboxing all your answers before posting here, why make such egregious mistakes? Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Not adequately sourced, poor formatting, bad writing. Precise locations prior to the 1971 Act are kind of irrelevant, when precise location begins to matter is the 1971 census that determined where the horses were at the time the legislation was enacted. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The locations aren't "precise" and they aren't irrelevant. I can find more sources if you like.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March
Irrelevant. And badly written. You have no interest in listening to my reasonable critiques, all you want to do is argue. You are not assuming good faith. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
NO. I only began to assess a few Wysong's many, many errors above and stopped before I was finished, when I looked at the above section and realized that you wanted us to focus on your suggestions. So let's cut to the chase. I COMPLETELY REJECT the version Wysong has posted in this section (which is a repeat of what she's posted earlier) because I have repeatedly explained the various errors and problems with tone and style (some at article talk, some at Mustang talk and some here). I have already posted a version in the above paragraph which incorporated some of her concerns, and I think also meets your list of suggestions, I am open to tweaking it, but I see no reason to make any dramatic changes to it beyond what YOU have asked Wysong to add or adjust. In contrast, Wysong doesn't get that all the cruft she wants to include is mostly irrelevant to the article. She also can't write very well, her prose is elementary and childlike, dull, over-relies on source material taken out of context, is formatted improperly, is inadequately sourced, and what isn't flat-out wrong or made-up is POV-pushing. She's been pushing virtually the same language for a month, and in the meantime I have been busting my ass to try and make reasonable changes! Sometimes I will do one thing Wysong claims she'd like to do, but then she changes her mind and asks for precisely the opposite. I am at the point now where I am ready to just say that this is about nothing but drama - You, Kharkiv have made a good faith suggestion to effect a compromise only to have Wysong throw it in your face. I am willing to improve the article; Wysong appears to only want a soapbox for her POV- which is constantly shifting. You want us to focus on content, but how can we when the other party appears to have no interest in listening to my reasonable critiques and just wants to argue. This is becoming toxic. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: That's enough. You cannot comment on other contributors, period. @SheriWysong: Sheri if we switch the date to mid-1800s on Montanabw's proposal above would that make you happy? Kharkiv07Talk 00:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Kharkiv, do read WP:BAIT and WP:TENDENTIOUS. I am sorry if you think I'm getting personal, but this other editor is NOT going to bully me any longer! I've been making these exact same points for a month; I have tried to effect a reasonable compromise; only to be repeatedly be told "no, the whole article is crap but I won't tell you how it's crap unless you try to change it and then I'll tell you that's crap too! Kharkiv, you made a group of reasonable suggestions, I took most of them and expressed openness to considering most of the others. I am not going to make any further moves until I see movement from the other side. Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I would still probably do a GAR on the article. I was asked to do the DR before doing it, but the collaboration here is not much better here than on the talk page. We can't stay on point, none of my suggestions are considered, or if they are Montanabw writes them to give the tone she wants, then if I object because her paraphrasing completely changes the meaning of the original source, the discussion just constantly devolves into one like the one above.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw and SheriWysong: Well guys I had high hopes for this one but it seems to me this is going nowhere, and I think I'm just going to have to mark it as failed and call it a day unless either of you want to really try. Kharkiv07Talk 00:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Kharkiv07. I've spent many hours in conference rooms hammering out compromises in the language of documents that we knew were going to be controversial (from agency headquarters in Washington D.C. on down), but it only works if everyone follows basic rules of conduct. I have found that, in that case, it usually works well. Because usually its a matter of figuring out where the other person is coming from, being frank about where you are coming from, and trying to keep the other person's viewpoint while doing so. I've really tried to do that. But, I too, know when to throw in the towel.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Gee, Wysong and I agreed on something. People should follow rules of conduct and be honest about who they are and where they are coming from. And now Wysong claims to be some kind of expert? I will remember that. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islam and Antisemitism
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Nishidani on 16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I’ve had my eye on, and edited, the article Islam and antisemitism, since 2009. It’s deeply problematic and needs a lot of work. A new user User:RebSmith made his first edit on wikipedia, on this page, with a massive 8,000kb of material listing putative ‘Antisemitic Verses in Quran ‘. Since the page he edited has a statement by one of the leading authorities on Islam and the Arab world, Bernard Lewis, specifically arguing that anti-Semitism is a modern issue for Islam, and since many authorities agree with him, and deny that anti-Semitism is evidenced by those verses,(regarding it as a modern development) that edit looked odd. The user has focused, since March 15, exclusively on this page, and appears thoroughly unfamiliar with standard policy guidelines. He is backed by User:Bkalafut, who contributed mainly by reporting me immediately as a putatively abusive editor for making 2 reverts in 48 hours while he was making two in a few hours ([2],[3] ), while WP:Canvassing RebSmith to join in.
Examination showed the user was relying on lists from writers who are commonly regarded as Islamophobes (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer). The issues are multiple (a) WP:RS (b) WP:OR (defining primary sources whose antisemitic nature is contested by scholarship, as though they were intrinsically antisemitic) (c)WP:NPOV.
If one compares the relatively well-written Christianity and antisemitism sister article, further, there is no list of specific individuals and the reader comes away with a general impression of a careful unaggressive exposition. In Islam and antisemitism, to the contrary, half of the text(notes 113-205) is devoted to long list of isolated incidents and figures, fingering individuals and institutions as antisemitic, and the page has been built programmatically or note in defiance of WP:NPOV, as an attack page on Islam.
Subsequently the page was locked by an admin, User:EdJohnston. Another administrator on the page suggested I see help here to resolve the multiple difficulties of editing that page since March 15.
I would like to proceed to help edit the article towards good article level, using only the best academic scholarship (abundant) on this difificult and sensitive topic, as I began to do here. The edit history and talk page divagations give me no confidence that improving it will not encounter edit-warring.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The extensive discussions on the talk page show consistent impasses.
How do you think we can help?
I would appreciate supervision of a rediscussion of the key issues, by any experienced dispute resolution third party wikipedian.
This dispute originated when I added a list of Quranic verses that were considered disparaging to Jews by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and commentators. While the list reflected secondary sources, it was improperly sourced. User:Bkalafut and I (please use pronoun "she", Reb=Rebecca) have since decided that the list shouldn't be included without each verse being properly sourced. However, a number of disputes still exist. The current points of contention:
using MEMRI as a source for the translation of the Muslim clerics. Please note that MEMRI is used by major reputable news organizations, from the New York Times [4] to the Washington Post [5], as well as in academic articles [6][7][8]
My position has always been that we should include both Muslim and non-Muslim views on this particular topic. We should include the analysis of Quranic verses by Muslim clerics who interpret them as showing a negative view of Jews as well as those who refute such analysis. Moreover, we should include the perspective of orientalists that agree with Bernard Lewis, as well as those who don't. A wikipedia article is not a place to highlight or push a particular POV, but to display the range of notable POVs and the criticism of those POVs on a particular topic. We should include the POVs of the "extremists" and "Islamophobes" on this particular issue since their views are very relevant and notable to current geopolitical events that include the Iranian nuclear treaty [9], the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [10], attacks on Jews and synagogues [11][12][13], blocking construction of mosques at "ground zero" [14], UK censoring of speakers considered "islamophobic" [15][16]. "Christianity and anti-Semitism" is a different topic theologically, historically, culturally, politically etc. and thus, mirroring it in "Islam and anti-Semitism" may not be proper encyclopedic behavior. RebSmith (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute has two layers. The first, and let me get it out of the way since it's the shortest, is over editing practice. User:RebSmith was in the process of making good-faith edits improving the content of the page and bringing it closer to NPOV. These edits did not use the best citation practice, so a "legalist" could say they were OR, but somebody here to build an encyclopedia could have been improved immediately by simply moving her citations around. Instead of making these immediate improvements, reverts were made, repeatedly and aggressively, without discussion. There is a kind of gaslighting going on, too, with User:Nishidani and User:Malik Shabazz repeatedly saying on the talk page that I and RebSmith have not read policy while never really arguing their point based on stated policy. And further gaslighting, claiming RebSmith is calling solely for "popular sources written by dilettanti", nevermind what she outlined above. Incivility from the beginning to the end, starting with bad manners and moving onward from there.
On top of that there is now this gripe about canvassing. A bully who reverts instead of fixes a newcomer's content complains that I "canvassed" his (one) victim (in implied violation of WP:CAN by telling him her I reported his conduct. In addition to being deeply out of line with basic morality and the spirit of WP:CAN, that's an abuse of the meaning of the word "canvassing" in English! This kind of gaslighting and wikilawyering must stop and we must return to normal editing practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkalafut (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second and more important is over NPOV and RS, and (from my point of view) WP:UNDUE with a dash of WP:OWN. An article about Islam and antisemitism needs to be about Islam and antisemitism meaning it needs (among other things) to give the reader a sense of how prevalent antisemitic attitudes are among Muslims and why antisemitic Muslims (qua Muslims) are antisemitic. If the Koran is part of the problem (and it is) a section on the Koran would be most useful. Proposing building this up verse by verse to avoid even the appearance of original research (because heaven forbid the sources are in the section and not verse by verse!)--was offered as a kind of olive branch but rejected.
At the heart of this is that User:Nishidani and several others are treating nearly all sources for this material--both Muslim and Western--as unreliable, while sources for a certain fringe POV (Bernard Lewis's claim that Muslim antisemitism is an import from Christendom--Lewis has a history of good scholarship but like Peter Duesberg or Linus Pauling that doesn't keep him from occasionally putting something wacky out there) make the cut. The argument has been made that because some of the sources for a certain POV are higher up a kind of totem pole of RS (academic papers, never mind that some of them come out of "studies" journals) what are otherwise RS for the beliefs and reasons for the beliefs of the the Muslim Joe Sixpack (clerics in translation, and secondary sources commenting on this) are not in this context RS. Following this perversion of WP:RS we end up with a POV article.
Irrelevancies about some of these secondary sources have been brought up on the talk page--it doesn't matter if one of these secondary sources has enemies who say he is behind a "hate group". Is he reliable? The strategy appears to be not to adhere to WP:RS but to wear everyone else out with irrelevant argument until we just go away. WP:OWN for the win--and then we wonder why editor participation is down sitewide.
In short: we an NPOV article and we absolutely need to follow WP:RS. Not some twisted version of RS where my digging out a journal article means portions of an article relying on MEMRI or on journalistic sources or sources written by non-academics must be deleted. Not wikilawyering and aggressive reverts for you but POV for me. Simple adherence to policy, with everybody here to try to build an encyclopedia, will lead to a balanced article. And a balanced article is my only interest here.Bkalafut (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above statement, in which Bernard Lewis is dismissed as a fringe POV from a user adamant on including Pamela Geller as a reliable source, demonstrates the problems serious editors are facing on that talk page. A leading scholar is dismissed but the ravings of a blogger on the internet are upheld as reliable. That is what needs to be fixed here, and I kind of sort of doubt this is the place to do it. nableezy - 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer's note: I am one of the volunteers at this noticeboard. I am neither taking nor declining the case. However, I will comment that this noticeboard is normally for informal mediation of relatively small content disputes that are typically resolved in a few weeks. Looking over the discussion on this article's talk page, and the comments about its history, it might be appropriate to request formal mediation at Requests for Mediation, a more formal process that may be better suited to handle complex disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will certainly try that if things do not work out here, or if the case is declined. I don't imagine that this will be long here. I'd like some preliminary thrashing out of elementary principles of best editing practice. I.e. if we have a very substantial range of scholarship on a sensitive topic, should we use that, rather than popular works by people without any formal training in the area. Perhaps I am wrong in my conviction that encyclopedic work commends the first, particularly where a huge background noise of media and polemic controversy surrounds the subject.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nishidani I'd like to suggest that you add a paragraph to your opening statement stating what you hope to accomplish here at DRN and try to create some specific, defined and realistic parameters. At present your purpose is too wide ranging for this forum. If you have one or two key issues and other participants volunteer to participate, then hopefully a productive, moderated discussion can take place here and then back at the talk page after the DRN case, thereby avoiding the need for formal mediation. That would be my suggestion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reb has already summed up the issues, preempting me. We could deal with those three points.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(3) May MEMRI be used for quotations from Muslim clerics on the Qur'an.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, No further discussion until a DRN volunteer formerly accepts and begins moderation of this case. Thank you
My brief answer to all three is that this is an encyclopedic article on the connection between anti-Semitism and Islam. The problem is therefore determining the issue of anti-Semitism in the Qur'an. There are anti-Semitic statements drawing on the Qur'an, made by Muslim clerics, but it would be an error of double selection bias to cite specific Qur'anic texts and specific modern Muslim clerical comments on them, to argue for that text's 'antisemitism'. Most of this kind of interpretation is done by POV-driven amateurs (Spencer, Geller, Bostom, Bat Ye'or) many of whom have no minimally adequate textual or methodological training in Arabic or Qur'anic interpretation. It is rather like an article on any passage in the Gospel, or Tanakh, in a Wikipedia article expounding a verse or passage by giving due weight to what scholars say, and what Joe-Blow of the evangelical Church of Fundamentalism in Arkansaw says of the same verse because Joe Blow is a cleric, and has a degree in Biblical studies from any of the 1,200 colleges in the North American Continent offering such degrees. That said, there should certainly be a section on the modern polemical literature (typified by these writers) and its assertions about Islam. Therefore, we should deal with the general outline according to what the best scholarship on Islam's relationship to the Jews was (and Raphael Israeli would disagree with Bernard Lewis), and then have a section, summarily covering the modern period controversies at a popular level. MEMRI's translations are not the point. They provide raw text as primary sources, and may be cited if the relevant scholarship cites them, through that scholarship. Finally, there is the question of why, in this particular article, in contradistinction to Christianity and antisemitism, do we have such intense focus on individuals, many obscure. Antisemitism is a Christian plague, which has infected Islamic quarters, yet we tread delicately round individual responsibility in the article on modern Christian anti-Semitism, while going whole hog to name names, associated with the list of enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Arab countries generally) on this page. It's like raging over alien metastases while ignoring the primary cancer. The WP:systemic bias is patent. We are careful not to tread on the toes of our own tradition, but run like a bull in a china shop over the toes of a billion foreigners' beliefs by selectively targeting as their legitimate representatives a few dozen of hundreds of thousands of imams. I think Reb has agreed notes 113-205 are wildly WP:Undue. The compromise I suggest therefore is to make a generic synthesis of all that in an appropriate, comprehensive modern section. I myself am more interested in the historical picture overall.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if I wish clarity on a section of the New Testament, or the Tanakh it is not my practice to ask clerical friends, or yeshiva heads, what those verses mean, since I am a pagan. What I do is look at what scholars, Christian or Jewish, secularists or whatever, qualified in Semitic philology and historical scholarship, tell me about them, which means looking at various conflicting interpretations, many acceptable neither to your local cleric or Yeshiva student. This distinction is elementary to anyone who has a knowledge of what encyclopedic article-writers do: they do not trust a partisan perspective. They follow the best modern scholarship on a topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. It appears a lot of this ground has already been covered, albeit without reaching consensus. Am I correct in reading it that way (no consensus, or was it just User:Nableezy remaining unconvinced and unwilling to go along in the end?Bkalafut (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We did agree to some revisions, but we both had strong opinions on this issue which were effectively left unresolved. I say "effectively" because although the quotes did remain in the article, I believe this was due to Nableezy deciding that he didn't want to argue about it anymore (no disrespect intended) as opposed to him accepting that my position was correct.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
What the article becomes if we don't take Muslim sources or advice in WP:RSE seriously
It isn't policy, but WP:RSE describes praxis elsewhere on WP (including articles on economics or Christianity) fairly accurately and the discussion makes sense. See the section on sources about religion: [17] "For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics".
Even the most "scholarly" perspective can be partisan, and NPOV means we do not give preference to the scholarly source merely because it is scholarly--especially if the article is about what practitioners of the religion actually believe. Setting aside the (itself POV) distinction between scholar and cleric (was Maimonides not both? what about Joseph Ratzinger?): If a detached scholar from a "studies" department (or even a more legitimate discipline) comes along and offers a novel interpretation of a prayer at Mass or a gospel passage, his novel interpretation does not suddenly become a reliable source--let alone the most reliable source--of information about what Christians actually believe.
If our object is writing a balanced article, we cannot wait for a Westerner with a position at a university to come along and sum it all up as a 'tertiary' source. Nor can we hand the trump card to the first ostensibly detached Westerner we can find. What we can't do is say on Wikipedia is to decide the dispute between Muslims if the topic is in dispute--just like we don't turn Wikipedia into a magisterium deciding right and wrong among economists or Christians. ("Well, this economist studied at Arkansaw and the other studied at Hahvahd...") Just as we do for Christians, for Muslim clerics the best policy is to discern who speaks with some kind of stature or recognized authority. He is a primary source for his own views but a secondary source for the peculiar brand of orthodoxy he comes from. He is a primary source even if some other Muslims consider him heterodox. The alternative to letting Muslims speak for Muslims--especially if also have problems with non-University-affiliated tertiary sources like Bat Ye'or or Robert Spencer who take contemporary Muslim clerics seriously--is to have an article which gives undue weight to the positions emphasized by (themselves often biased) Western academics or which doesn't adequately cover actual Muslim belief and praxis, in favor of (since we're going to do something other than what is recommended in WP:RSE for religious topics) the Koran interprerations favored by academics up to User:Nishidani's standards of philological expertise, in short, an article about Nishidani's favored fringe POV (anti-semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) peppered with Koran exegesis from a few Nishidani-approved university-affiliated scholars Muslims don't actually follow. That is, unless we go digging for Western tertiary sources.
Let's just follow WP:RS as is done elsewhere and take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy the way we take Protestant preachers with some authority and reputation to represent their groups.Bkalafut (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy.' There is no 'Muslim' orthodoxy, nor 'Christian' (put a Lutheran, an Evangelical, and a Catholic theologian in the one room) or 'Jewish' orthodoxy.
To call a 'fringe POV' (anti-Semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) a position widespread in scholarship means the editor in question has no grasp on policies at WP:RS or WP:fringe.
Every editor here who might have some hobby horse to ride quixotically into a wiki battle should first read Esther Webman, 'The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism', Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5, 677–697, September 2010. Everyone will find some comfort there for any particular bias he or she may entertain. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been exclusively aimed at procedural and administrative issues that needed to be cleared up before a DRN volunteer could adopt this case. Now that those issues have been addressed to some degree, please wait for the case to be officially opened before discussing further. DRN is not a replacement or substitute for the article talk page. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ahmadi Claims Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S fulfilled a prophecy that said , "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." As is clear from the above statement the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani A.S is that 1)The Moon will be eclipsed on the first possible night in Ramadhan, 2)The Sun will be eclipsed on the middle of possible nights in Ramadhan, Now Xtremedood wants to add "criticism" to this which is "Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy. Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after." I contest to this addition. I will explain my reservations in my comment below.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
talk on talk page only
How do you think we can help?
Remove unreliably sourced material and protect the page.
Summary of dispute by Xtremedood
The article in question contains material that is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy (NPOV). The prophecy outlined states: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." — Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188.
According to the "Ahmadiyya" viewpoint, Mirza fulfilled this prophecy (which is detailed in the article), however, according to opponents, Mirza did not fulfill this prophecy. There are three main points of criticism that I want to remain on the article (as to retain NPOV), they are: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and middle-day (~15th) of Ramadan 1894/1895 respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. These criticisms are highlighted in a variety of different sources and I have mentioned them in the page's talk page.
The dispute is centered around FreeatlastChitchat's unwillingness to bring about legitimate criticisms to Mirza's claims and my willingness to do so. Xtremedood (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
My reservations about the content are summarized below statement by statement.
1)Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy
Reservations are
I)It is not the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Alaih-e-Salam that the eclipse will be on the first of month. This is tantamount to putting your own words in another persons mouth and then claiming that he is lying. The claim is that eclipses will occur in the first and middle days/nights of "possible" nights/days.
II)the source http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html does not mention ANYWHERE that the prophecy is wrong because the eclispe did not occur on 1st of Ramadhan. This is blatant misinformation , I don't know what else to call it. Quoting a source and then saying something which the source does not say.
2)Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after.
The source Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. Muhammad is the Last Prophet. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 100. Retrieved 2010-03-17. does not mention this as his own words. He says that a person named "Molvi Syyed Barkat Ali" Gosha nashin of Waziarabad has mentioned this in his book "The false Prophet of Qadian". I have been unable to find a single reference to this aforementioned person on the internet and his book seems to be unknown as well. There fore this source should be fringe and unreliable.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated, the following criticisms should remain: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and 15th respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after.
The reason why I say this is to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to bring some neutrality to a biased article.
I will now attempt to address some of FreeatlastChitchat reservations. It is irrelevant whether or not Mirza claims that the eclipse will be on the first of the month or not. The criticism is that Mirza's claims of fulfilling the prophecy are invalid. The critics maintain that the prophecy indicates that the lunar and solar eclipses will occur on the 1st and 15th days of Ramadan. Based upon this understanding of the prophecy, the critics claim that Mirza did not fulfill the prophecy.Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi. Muhammad is the Last Prophet. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 100. Retrieved 2010-03-17.
Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi makes the criticisms clear that the prophecy was not fulfilled according to his interpretation of the prophecy. He essentially claims that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy.
The prophecy itself outlines that the lunar eclipse will occur on the 1st of Ramadan and the Middle day (~15th) of Ramadan, however the "Ahmadiyya" interpret the prophecy as not saying this, but rather saying as Mirza mentions.
I never claimed that the source, http://dlmcn.com/qadfl.html, ever claimed that the prophecy was wrong. The source however places doubt on "Ahmadiyya" claims, even if we were to interpret the prophecy according to their own interpretations. The website states exactly: "Thus, the Ahmadiyyas must either accept that eclipses may occur on the 12th of a lunar month as well as on the 27th - or else they must regard eclipses as impossible on both those Islamic dates. Whichever choice is made, requires revision of their thesis." David McNaughton tackles the issue while relying on "Ahmadiyya" interpretations of the prophecy to render the "Ahmadiyya" claim as potentially invalid.
The third criticism is also crucial as to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it indicates a new and legitimate dimension to the interpretation of the prophecy. According to Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, we see that others interpret the events as occurring before the advent of the Mahdi and not 3 years after Mirza declared himself as the Mahdi (as the "Ahmadiyya" claim). I have checked the source and it is legitimate. Xtremedood (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the 'the sun and moon eclipse' section to reflect a more neutral view of the prophecy claim. This may be observed in my most recent edit. It includes both the views of critics and supporters. Xtremedood (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This case is now open for discussion. Has there been some resolution here? If not, please summarize in a short paragraph, what the remaining issues are.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there has been no resolution. I have not edited the page much as to avoid an edit war.
Xtremedood has Removed the translation of the Prophecy used by the Ahmadiyyah, this is blatant POV editing. When the article is about Ahmadiyyah then the article should use the translation done by the Ahmadiyyah. NPOV is to include their translation, not to force another persons translation upon them. Xtremedood tried to use the translation done by the fringe group Lahore movement and then wrote in his edit summary that he was using the translation from the Ahmadiyyah. This is utter bad faith. I don't know what else to call it. Therefore my reservations still remain.
Also the article is about the LIFE of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Aliah Salam. We should include what happened during his life, this is a biography. You can read the articles on anyone else and it will not include this kind of criticism which is basically hate speech and fringe theories.
Therefore we should mention that he called the eclipse a sign from God and if someone criticised it during that time i.e 1894 we should mention that person. Going into criticisms and claims after the person's life has ended have no reason for mention in his life history. This is the case with ALL other pages from Jesus to Moses. Life history does not include criticisms which are published 50 years after the death. The place to include them is the page about his teachings or the page about his miracles.
Also mentioning these writers in the articles page breaks the coherence. We are writing that in 1984 he claimed that an eclipse was a sign and then instead of going onto tell what he did in 1895, we start to mention what a writer wrote in 1970. Therefore this has no place in this article. Also you can see from the other signs given in the article that they carry only the critics of his age and what they said at the time has been mentioned.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FreeAtLatsChitChat for your response. However the first paragraph was filled with derogatory statements about the other editor. I will not tolerate such posts. We are here to discuss content only not editor behavior. I don't care what happened in the past. We are here now in the present discussing sources and proposed text in a moderated setting. Please limit all future comments to discussion of content only. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seemed solved to me, however I woke up today to see that Freeatlastchitchat reverted the edits and made considerable changes to the article itself, I have since reverted it back to its original. The translation I have provided is the same as that in the source he provides, however it does not include any interpretations within the quotation (prophecy) itself. I have utilized both the "Lahori Ahmadiyya" sources as well as "non-Ahmadi" sources for this translation. "Lahori Ahmadis" are a group of "Ahmadis" who have a significant following with the "Ahmadiyya" community and they love and respect Mirza. The translation I have provided is a direct translation of the prophecy in question, according to a variety of different sources. As an editor I have worked on a variety of Wikipedia articles and I have not seen such interpretations mixed in with the translations of quotes like this before. When dealing with quotes I see that they are usually direct quotes, not interpretations of quotes. I believe it is a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as highlighted in Wikipedia's five pillars. In my most recent edit I have included both points of view and it provides for an analysis of the content based on Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Directly under the prophecy itself I provide for the "Ahmadi" interpretation: "Ahmadis interpret this prophecy as the lunar eclipse occurring on the first possible nights of Ramadan and the solar eclipse occurring on the middle possible day of Ramadan,[30] whereas many critics interpret the prophecy according to what is literally stated in the prophecy, which is that the lunar eclipse will occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse on the middle night of Ramadan." The statements after this statement then go to expound upon the various points of view of this prophecy and how it pertains to the personality of Mirza himself. I believe including both sides is a crucial aspect of adhering to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Xtremedood (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Issue #1
Ok, we will discuss one issue at a time. The first issue is:
the translation of the Prophecy used by the Ahmadiyyah
FreeAtLast, please provide the text you would like to add to the article and the reliable source(s) that support that text so we can discuss it together. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." Ref: Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188 [18] The website is the official website of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim community and it is sanctioned by their supreme leader, it is therefore, the most reliable source of information about Ahmadiyyah community on the internet. I will just copy paste the Arabic too because that will come into the discussion later إن لمهدينا آيتين لم تكونا منذ خلق السماوات والأرض ينكسف القمر لأول ليلة من رمضان وتنكسف الشمس في النصف منه ولمتكونا منذ خلق الله السموات والأرض.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made some changes to the formatting for the reference part of your comment. We don't have a RefList section on this page so just list the Ref info in text please.
It appears FreeAtLast wants to include a quote from the "official website of the Ahmadiyyah Muslim community". User:Xtremedood, what are your objections to this content?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately if you have another version of the content please list that here and provide sources. You may also cut and paste a portion of your comment from yesterday to this section if needed. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry for the late response as I was busy with university and other work. It is first important to note that the so called "translation" from the official website, as Freeatlastchitchat is describing is not a direct translation, but a translation PLUS an interpretation of the text. No where is it mentioned in Arabic that the moon will be eclipsed on the so called "possible" days, but rather it clearly states the first day and middle day of Ramadan, respectively. I think by including the translation from the so called "official" website, it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as described in the five pillars of Wikipedia. Clearly the "official" website has its biases, and I think it should not remain in the translation. What I propose is a direct translation, as evident from a variety of sources, including both "Ahmadiyya" and "non-Ahmadiyya" sources. The direct translation of the prophecy in Dar Qutni is as follows: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth."
This translation is direct and may be found on a variety of sources, including the famous moonsighting.com "Qur'an & Hadith on Eclipses". moonsighting.com. 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-03-22. source as well as the "Lahore Ahmadiyya""The Significance of the Lunar and Solar Eclipses in Islam:". The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. 1999-08-12. Retrieved 2015-03-22. community website (see 5, a. - "The Heavenly Sign"). The "Lahore Ahmadiyya" are a major sect within "Ahmadiyya" (there are 2 main sects) and they love and respect Mirza. There are also a variety of other sources that have this translation, if you wish for me to provide them I may do so.
In my edit on March 24th, however, I did indeed include the interpretation of the "official" website, as described by Freeatlastchitchat, but I did so after the direct translation of the prophecy. After stating the direct translation, I indicated both interpretations: "Ahmadis interpret this prophecy as the lunar eclipse occurring on the first possible nights of Ramadan and the solar eclipse occurring on the middle possible day of Ramadan,[30] whereas many critics interpret the prophecy according to what is literally stated in the prophecy, which is that the lunar eclipse will occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse on the middle night of Ramadan"
I think this is in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it adequately describes both interpretations of the prophecy as well as it goes into details pertaining to the viewpoints from both critics and supporters of Mirza. I think by only including the so called "official" translation + interpretation, Wikipedia would inadvertently be supporting a man's claim to be the Messiah and Mahdi, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I believe the translation should remain as it has, prior to Freeatlastchitchat's edits. I have also included 4 criticisms on March 24 (one more from the initial 3), which I also think should be included, however, I do not want to take too much space here, so I may wait until if you ask for it. Thanks. Xtremedood (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Let's finish discussing the 'official' quote before we move on to the criticisms. According to WP:RS secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources. Primary sources may be used but they should be given appropriate weight in light of the available secondary sources and often it is prudent to give an inline attribution to the primary source so the the reader is aware the text is from the original source, in this case a quote from the BLP subject. I am not aware of anything in WP policy that would preclude the use of text based on secondary sources. It would seem to me that publishing both the direct quote from the primary source and the version published in secondary sources is a reasonable compromise in this matter. FreeAtLast, do you have some input in this regard?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given by Xtremedood are not reliable and should therefore be ignored. The reasons are
1)Regarding the books and other anti Ahmadiyyah literature quoted here I would like to point out that secondary source is reliable if it is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. This is not the case here. There is massive and complete conflict of interest. Rather the source is a hate page and hate literature. ALSO the publication house is not reputable, they have no editorial oversight in place and they have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The very title of the book "False prophet of Qadian" should be a big red flag.(Analogy is that when writing a biography of Jesus, Moses, or anyone else we will never pick content from a work called "Jesus the false Messiah", although we may use its content in a separate section where we mention the people who oppose him)
2)Even more importantly the sources quoted go against the dictionary and are therefore fringe. I see that Xtremedood has given the impression that these sources give a "literal" meaning, but that is not the case. A literal meaning should not go against the dictionary. The dictionary is the most reliable source we have so we must not go against it. Now according to the Arabic Lexicon (You can pick any one of them, I consulted 12 including the Lisan-al-Arab and the Taj-ul-Uroos) the word used in this prophecy "Qamar" can never be used with the first night of any lunar month. In the entire Arabic literature the word "Qamar" is never ever used to mean the moon of the first night. Long explanation of this statement is that the prophecy says "the Qamar will be eclipsed on the first night of the month", but the word Qamar cannot ever mean the moon on the first night of the month, because as opposed to English the Arabic language does not have a general word "moon" which can be used everywhere, rather they use different words for different phases of moon (this is used in english too like crescent, new moon and full moon, but not that specifically, we can say moon anytime we want even if it is the first of a month, but the Arabic language does not allow this, the first moon will be called "hilal" and never ever "Qamar") . Therefore any translation which tries to say that Qamar means the moon which appears on the first date of a month will go against the dictionary and be therefore unreliable. For you see when a person who can read Arabic studies the prophecy he understands at once that the prophecy cannot refer to the first night's moon, but when we try to translate it into english using only one word "moon" it presents an absurdity like for example saying that "The full moon will be eclipsed on the first night of a month". Even though this is common knowledge to anyone who knows Arabic and can read , I would like to quote http://aaiil.org/text/articles/light/solarlunar.shtml as my source. I would like to point out that this website has already been included in the list of "reliable" sources by Xtremedood and should not be contested now. They have provided Lisan Ul Arab as their source of translation and have provided an explanation with their translation. So either we can put the translation with the explanation or we can use the one which I have given, either way the translation given in the sources quoted by Xtremedood cannot be used because it goes against the dictionary.
3)Lastly I would again like to reiterate that we should not include hate literature in this discussion. This is just a suggestion, I will leave it upto the DRN volunteer to decide. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1)Sources are not hate literature. This is diverting the issue. "Lahore Ahmadiyya" is an official group within the "Ahmadiyya" community. moonsighting.com is a word renowned and reputable source.
2) You are introducing primary research (of your own), which is incorrect. Once again you are diverting the issue. This is the "Ahmadiyya" interpretation of the prophecy, not a direct translation. I could go further in detail, however it is important not to divert the issues. Xtremedood (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of quote
OK, just to be very clear, we are discussing the quote below and nothing else. Please do not comment on or reference other text or other sources as it only serves to confuse and create obstacles to our discussion.:
"For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan."
Please provide a link to the source (or explain how we can access the source) that verifies this quote and we will discuss the validity of that source and then we will move on to other sources and their corresponding text. Please keep all future posts brief and to the point as I don't read walls of text. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." Ref: Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188 [19] I would also like to link the dictionary where it says that the word "Qamar" cannot be used for the first night of the month
"والقَمَرُ الذي في السماء. قال ابن سيده: والقَمَر يكون في الليلة الثالثة من الشهر، وهو مشتق من القُمْرة، والجمع أَقْمار.
وأَقْمَرَ صار قَمَراً، وربما قالوا: أَقْمَر الليلُ ولا يكون إِلا في الثالثة؛ أَنشد الفارسي: يا حَبَّذا العَرَصاتُ ليَـ ـلاً في لَيالٍ مُقْمِرات أَبو الهثيم: يسمى القمر لليلتين من أَول الشهر هلالاً، ولليلتين من آخره، ليلة ست وعشرين وليلة سبع وعشرين، هلالاً، ويسمى ما بين ذلك قَمَراً. الجوهري: القَمَرُ بعد ثلاث إِلى آخر الشهر يسمى قمراً لبياضه، وفي كلام بعضهم قُمَيْرٌ، وهو تصغيره.والقَمَرانِ الشمس والقمر." I used http://www.baheth.net/ to look up the word. It combines many dictionaries.
The translation should not include the word "possible" in it. It is a clear mistranslation as the word 'possible' is not in the original source. This is validated by moonsighting.com, the "Lahore Ahmadiyya" website, and also it is in the so called "official Ahmadiyya" site that Freeatlastchitchat is talking about.[20] As we can see from this source the prophecy from Dar Qutni is translated, however, there are two brackets included in the tranlsation which are interpretations of the prophecy. This is mixed with the translation to confuse people. This is what I am referring to:, 1)"(i.e., on the first of the nights on which a lunar eclipse can occur)" and 2) "(i.e., on the middle day on which a solar eclipse can occur)."
According to world renowned and respected (not hate speech) moonsighting.com, we see that they have translated it in the same way (without the interpretation in brackets).[21][22] We see in this secondary source that the prophecy is being interpreted as occurring on the first and middle day of Ramadan, not so called "possible days." There are also necessary criticisms of the "Ahmadiyya" position that require this interpretation of the translation for it to make sense, such as those made in Rizvi's book.[23] According to the "Lahore Ahmadiyya" official website, which is also an official "Ahmadiyya" group, we see the prophecy stated in the same manner (see 5, a. - "The Heavenly Sign").[24] The so called "official Ahmadiyya" website as described by Freeatlastchitchat is not a reliable source as they are on record of promoting what is in accordance to their religious agenda in a biased way. However all three sources point to quote mentioned on my edit on March 24th to be correct.[25] This is as exactly mentioned: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth.— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188". Xtremedood (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the quote is going to be included in the article it will need to be included verbatim, as reported by the source. WP doesn't allowed modified quotes based on conclusions or facts drawn from other sources per WP:OR. The source appears to be a legitimate source especially if it has an inline attribution. However, I'm wondering, if we are not quoting the BLP subject is this quote appropriate for the article? See WP:Coatrack. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly will be the meaning of verbatim here? Giving the translation used in the hate literature quoted by Xtremedood will create absurdity as I have mentioned earlier. Without the explanation the translation is not complete. Original research is something which the editor does himself, however this translation is taken from a reliable source and corroborated by the dictionary, not done by an editor.While the translation quoted against it goes against the dictionary. The dictionary shows that the thing which will be eclipsed is called "Qamar", and Qamar cannot be translated as "moon" when used with a lunar date, it will have to be translated as "moon from the fifth till the 26th". This is why the official website has given the explanation with the translation. And I would again like to point out that the sources quoted are considered hate pages(except the official website ofc). The Simple evidence of this fact is that they use the slur "Qadiani" to refer to Ahmadis. It is tantamount to someone writing about African Americans and then using the title "The this and that of NIGGERS". As the source uses a word which has the similar status as nigger, the source is a hate page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Verbatim, means quoting the source you have cited per WP:OR. Again I remind you to confine your comments to the single item we are discussing ie the quote and the single source you have given.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.I have done some searching and seeing that the only negative in the source was OR and Primary I have found another source which verifies and corroborates the text found in the website. Here [26]we can see that the text is almost identical give or take a couple of grammatical differences which will occur in two different translations no matter how close they are. this solves the Original research and Primary source problem. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source is affiliated with your initial source (official website of "Ahmadiyya") and therefore it should not be treated as differently. Please refer to page 362 on the text for proof or click this link.[27]
There is no wikipedia policy that says "affiliation" should be considered. If your only problem is affiliation then please quote a wikipedia policy about it. The article on secondary sources clearly says that ALL secondary sources are biased. This is a secondary source per wikipedia policy. Also the author is merely pointing out that the Ahmadiyyah website is present on the internet and it can be used to get more information about some things described in the book. Just becuase a website is given at the back of the book does not make the book unreliable.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is about two articles, Magneto and Magneto (generator). Chrisrus and I believe that these are confusing because all magnetos are generators. Andy Dingley appears to be asserting WP:Ownership of the articles and refuses to consider any change.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None
How do you think we can help?
By acting as a mediator
Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley
I have explained the distinction repeatedly at Talk:Magneto_(generator). I have asked Biscuittin, without response, to explain which part of that is beyond him.
There are a number of articles on magnetos. Magneto is a broad article on the physical principles. It is entirely appropriate to have detailed articles on the narrower applications, such as telephone magneto, ignition magneto, bottle dynamo and magneto (generator). Of these, by far the best structured and referenced is the one Biscuittin is out to remove.
My past experience with this editor has been substantial, yet unimpressive. Never one to let ignorance of a topic get in the way of a staunchly held opinion:
One is a subset of the other, not a distinct and separate group.
Before proceeding, and as you see fit to cross-examine my responses within this section, can we first make sure that you understand that much as a concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have things to say but I am waiting for a volunteer to open a thread. Biscuittin (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biscuittin, shall I do that or am I too much of an interested party? Chrisrus (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Chrisrus
I was working on the Magneto (disambiguation) page and noticed that we seemed to have two articles about the same referent: Magneto (generator) and Magneto. When I asked what the difference was on the talk page, I repeatedly got non-answers and hand-waving. I came to the conclusion that if it is not exactly a WP:CONTENTFORK, then something quite similar: a case in which Wikipedians couldn't agree, so they arrived at the solution of having two articles about the same referent. I could be wrong about this, though, because I'm not an expert on the topic, but it's very suspicious that no one can tell me in general terms what the difference between the two is. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Magneto (generator) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: Welcome User:Biscuittin to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do this is to add: {{subst:drn-notice|Magneto (generator)}} to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. After all parties have created a Summary of the Dispute, then a random DRN volunteer will accept and moderate the discussion. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this message and notified all parties. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DRN Volunteer Needed: All three parties have given summaries. Will a DRN volunteer please accept and moderate this case? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am one of the volunteers at this noticeboard and am willing to act as the moderator. I don't claim any knowledge of the subject matter beyond having taken college physics decades ago. I will ask the parties to be concise and to be civil, and will note that civility is required in dispute resolution and everywhere in Wikipedia. Comment only on content, not on contributors. (Comments on contributors will be hatted.) I see that one issue is whether there should be two articles or whether they should be merged into one. Will each editor please state concisely their opinion on whether the articles should be merged or whether two articles are needed. If two articles are needed, please state clearly and concisely what the differences are. If you think that your first statement speaks for itself, you may say so. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the subset relationship by saying what is a magneto that is not a generator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are there any other issues besides the proposed merge? Also, would the editors be willing to submit the question of whether to merge the two articles to a Request for Comments by the community?
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by Biscuittin
I am happy to retain two articles if magneto (generator) is given a more meaningful title. The present title implies that other magnetos are not generators. I have suggested renaming magneto (generator) as High power magneto but this has been rejected by Andy Dingley. I should also point out that there was a previous dispute about the name in 2011 which, as far as I can tell, was never resolved. Biscuittin (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a Request for comments would be a good idea. Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved by moderator.
I can't tell yet if an Rfc will be necessary. On one hand, why drag things out if the answer is clear? On the other hand, it would support my assertion that the honest naive reader cannot help but parse this as two articles about the same referent. Chrisrus (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second statement by Biscuittin
Where do we go from here? Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by Biscuittin
To the Moderator: Could you please start directing the discussion. I have had quite enough insults from Andy Dingley already. Biscuittin (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by Andy Dingley
First statement by Chrisrus
Instead of making a statement, may I ask that the reader do some finding of fact?
Please let's focus first on how to improve the navigation page Magneto (disambiguation). and let the rest flow from that. We should first and foremost be focused on what to do about Magneto (disambiguation). Please let's look at together now.
It says
"A magneto is a permanent magnet electrical generator....
...Magneto may also refer to Magneto, a permanent magnet electrical generator generating a large current, e.g. for lighting.
So we could expect that the Magneto means "Magneto (generator)", i.e.: all magneto generators, and conclude before going any further that it should therefore be called "Magneto (generator)", but there already is an article Magneto (generator) which is based on this only about large current magnetos.
Now please click on the two articles and read at least the two leads and tables of contents. Does their reality fit with the expectations of the disambiguation page?
Are you with me so far? Please react as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Threaded discussion is not permitted in DRN. Discuss in your own section. (Threaded discussion is permitted on talk pages, but can go astray, and, at DRN, the moderator directs the discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would agree with that much (and have always agreed with that). However WP:NATURALDIS would seem to apply, in particular the parenthetical form.
Magneto (generator) is accurate and in common use ("Magneto" is in use, "generator" is in use, albeit both are used independently, hence the parenthetical form).
High power magneto is a sheer invention and WP:NEOLOGISM. There are no period sources referring to them as such. There are no current sources describing magnetos as high power. It is confusing to describe them as "high power" when de Meriten's lighthouse is now surpassed by my car's alternator.
I see no suggestions better than Magneto (generator) and no problems with that such that we need to change it. If anyone comes up with something that is better then I've no objection to changing it, but we're still waiting... Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think you're just trolling deliberately. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a contributor to Magneto (generator) so you know what it means. Somebody who knows nothing about magnetos might wonder "Is a magneto a generator or not?" I am trying to find a compromise but you keep insisting that "Magneto (generator)" is the only possible title. Biscuittin (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep Magneto (generator) as a separate article but with a more meaningful name. If Andy Dingley cannot agree to any name change then I think the only solution is to merge the two articles as proposed by Chrisrus. Magneto (generator) has been problematic for a long time because (looking at the article history) there were previous disputes about it in 2013 and 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" If Andy Dingley cannot agree to any name change"
Please, enough of the deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you can agree to a name change? If so, what new name do you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see those words further up the page? Try reading them. Maybe, "If anyone comes up with something that is better then I've no objection to changing it, but we're still waiting... " I've been waiting since 2011. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2 by volunteer moderator
Let's try again. Comment only on content. Do not comment on contributors. The instruction not to comment on contributors is not merely a recommendation; it is a requirement. It appears that there may be three articles in question, Magneto, Magneto (generator), and Magneto (disambiguation). It appears to me that the name Magneto (generator) is confusing and misleading, because any magneto is a generator (at least according to the usual physical definition). So either of two actions may be reasonable: first, to merge the first two articles; or, second, to rename Magneto (generator) to something more indicative. Would each editor please state which action is preferred, and, if a rename, what the rename should be, or explain why the current situation is preferred anyway? If changes are needed to the disambiguation, what should they be? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are there any other issues? (As if this one isn't enough.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2 by Andy Dingley
I am, and have always been, happy to rename this article to another name of the form "Magneto (<foo>)" (per normal practice of WP:NATURALDIS) provided that this is some improvement onMagneto (generator). So far there has been sniping that the current scope is wrong and the current name is wrong, yet nothing has been put forward that improves upon it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the overlap with magneto, then this is addressed at length on Talk:Magneto (generator). The defining physical character of a magneto is that it generates power (and does so using a permanent magnet field). However an empirical observation of the many examples is that are not, and were not, used as bulk power generators. Thus the small exceptions to this, as described at Magneto (generator), are significant and worthy of separate coverage. Besides which, I'm loath in general to merge a narrow but well sourced article into a broad article with poor structure and minimal sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2 by Biscuittin
I have no quarrel with the articles magneto and magneto (disambiguation). I would prefer to keep magneto (generator) as a separate article, but with a different name to avoid confusion, because all magnetos are generators. I made three suggestions for new names but all were rejected. I now make a fourth suggestion Magneto (bulk power generator). This distinguishes it from other magnetos which are generally low-powered (i.e. they only generate a few watts) although they may generate a high voltage). If a suitable name cannot be agreed, I have no objection to magneto and magneto (generator) being merged. Biscuittin (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2 by Chrisrus
This is a POV fork; two articles about the same referent created as a compromise to stop Wikipedians arguing. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia; this is not allowed; this was decided a long time ago for good reason. Otherwise, we might have an article Dog and another called Big dog so that each can have his own article and no one will feel disappointed. We don't artificially divide referents in order to keep peace among Wikipedians, even if the two parties arrive at some kind of agreement about what each one will emphasize or cover. In such cases, we merge the two articles. Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One question is :: is the generator meaning (the original meaning) still dominant over the other meanings? (Sometimes I get the impression that, whatever topic I think of, its name will prove to be also the name of a pop music song and/or the name of a racehorse.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 3 by volunteer moderator
There seems to be agreement that renaming of Magneto (generator) is reasonable if a better name for it can be found. Does anyone have a suggested better name for it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there agreement that, if it is renamed, it does not need to be merged with the overall article, Magneto, or do we need an RFC on the merge question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To address Anthony Appleyard's closing question, if there are any pop music songs, pop music groups, racehorses, or whatever with this name, they will be added to the disambiguation list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Participants continue to bicker, without a moderator, despite a clear warning(s). DRN is not a substitute for an article talk page. Please take your discussion back to the article. Thank you. — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Two issues:
1) A sourced edit (section: Period of the exodus) is removed by Director without any reason;
2) Edits unsourced are pushed by Director without sources (section: Slavs under Italian Fascist rule).
I tried to politely convince Director to discuss, but he just removes sourced edits and push unsourced ones. I believe this issue can be sorted out easily with the help of a mediator.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None
How do you think we can help?
Acting as a mediator.
Summary of dispute by Director
A few days ago Silvio1973 was edit-warring on the Josip Broz Tito article to push non-consensus edits. He was blocked. Now that his block is up, he's edit-warring on the Istrian Exodus article to push non-consensus edits. This approach and general attitude, typical of Silvio1973 (which can further be gleamed from the neutrality of his above "overview"), successfully demolishes discussion. This is an issue for ANI, not DRN. -- Director(talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Istrian exodus discussion
Please, No further discussion until a DRN volunteer formerly accepts and begins moderation of this case, and please comment on the conduct, not the contributors. Thank you.
Yes, it is true that I was blocked two days ago. I recognise I made a mistake, but this has nothing to do with the discussion now ongoing on Istrian Exodus. I call my fellow editor Director to join the discussion and to explain why he removes sourced edits and push unsourced ones. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's all very nice and polite, Silvio, but the several coats of slime that cover each of your posts don't do much to disguise your bullying tactics. Tactics which I am not going to validate by discussing with you while you edit war. You were blocked for the exact same thing you are doing now: edit-warring to push opposed edits, and justifying it by claiming they're "sourced".
You seem to think actually posting a source for once is such a massive achievement it justifies you edit-warring until you have your way. Whereas in fact 99 times out of 100, you're misrepresenting a source, misquoting it, generally being dishonest about what it says (I count at least six times you were caught doing that), or its a blatantly fringe point of view contradicted by many other sources (as you were told just now at the JBT article), etc.. etc...
On the other hand, when others bring up sources you don't like, you see no problem in presenting nothing but your own irrelevant personal opinions as a reason why we must change what they state.
Wikipedia functions through productive discussion and consensus, something you appear to be incapable of. You are a user that employs bullying, dishonesty, cherry-picking, and general underhandedness in pushing an extreme right-wing Italian political point of view, wherever you go. Albeit well-coated, as I mentioned. 11:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Director, please comment about the edits not the editors. What are the reasons of your current disagreement on Istrian Exodus? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's conduct. The topic you are editing on requires research and a constructive discussion, which isn't possible while you're edit-warring, and probably at all if its only with you (which I know from extensive experience). Restore the status quo, post your proposed edit on the talkpage, and lets request input from another editor. -- Director(talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diretor, the status quo includes the edit you removed. Again, the section concerning the exodus from Zadar is in IMHO very neutral. I suggest we agree on this section (please propose the wording you consider the most appropriate) and concerning the other section we wait for a mediator. Please note I have not removed the unsourced sections but just tagged them. Does this approach suits you? Again, I call for constructive discussion. In this precise instance, we do not face very controversial matters, consensus can arise very quickly if we seat and discuss. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in what you claim to be the status quo, for me its the state of affairs prior to your introducing these new edits. Its a matter of principle: you will please denounce edit-warring as a means of pushing new controversial edits - or otherwise discussion loses any point: you might as well introduce any changes you like (until you're presumably blocked again, that is). -- Director(talk) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? Do you need a demonstration of good faith? I am going to remove the section concerning the exodus from Zadar, but please join the discussion and tell what is wrong with it and possibly propose an alternative formulation. There is nothing of seriously controversial in this edit. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While I'm occasionally a coordinator here, I am not taking this case (at least not at this time). Rather, I would advise that both of you keep your cool and wait for someone who is willing to take the case. If you continue your back-and-forth it's likely that nobody will take the case and you'll need to consider other avenues of dispute resolution. Additionally, if you continue focusing on conduct rather than content than this is likely to be closed in any case, as DRN is not intended to address conduct matters. I urge you to take my advice under consideration. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Director: does your comment about this not being meant for the DRN mean that you're unwilling to participate? Kharkiv07Talk 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the guy to escalate things, but I'm sick to death of Silvio1973's edit-warring (this is a looong-standing issue) and won't discuss on principle until I've reason to believe anything can be achieved through discussion. That is to say, unless Silvio1973 reverts edits added against opposition, and we have the participation of a third party. I'm sure you can see that discussion swiftly loses all point when the editor believes he can add things to the article with or without the agreement of others. -- Director(talk) 05:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Director, you should really focus on the edits and not on the editors. I am not pushing anything, indeeed to show my good faith I have removed my edit and put it in the talk page. I have also posted this request on the DRN in the hope to have a mediator. Again, I would like to know why you oppose my edit and would welcome your alternative modification. Waiting for your comments the contested edit remains in the talk page, but please not that I have already been waiting for 3 days. Please join the discussion, refusing to join and affirm that I push edits (in spite of the objective fact they are sourced) it's not the right method. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the bickering and wait for a moderator or this case will be closed and sent back to the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Director: I may be missing something but I remain confused, all I want is for you to say yes or no, will you participate in this discussion? Kharkiv07Talk 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithbob: I don't appreciate being talked to like this. Simply because Silvio1973 keeps trying to "reply" to everything I write doesn't mean I'm "bickering" with anybody (that kind of disruption is "how he rolls"). I was asked a question. I replied to that question. If I discussed Silvio1973's conduct its because its relevant to my reply.
@Kharkiv07: I'd hoped I was clear enough.. If the article is restored to the status quo ante, and we have the participation of a third party, any kind of participation - then yes, I'll engage. If not, then no. I won't engage if Silvio1973 can indeed edit the article without regard to the talkpage, as that renders discussion moot. And I won't engage with him one-on-one, as I know from long experience that just doesn't work. -- Director(talk) 23:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Director:, I have reverted the edit to the status quo ante, except the cn tag on two sentences. Now, can you please join the discussion? And please can we focus on the edits and not on the editors? @Kharkiv07:, the earlier we get a mediator involved, the earlier the matter will be sorted out. I really hope mediation can start on this case. Once discussion started, you will realise we speak of a very basic issue, which can be solved in little time. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Lee Kuan_Yew
– New discussion.
Filed by Lee480 on 14:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Both editors assert that Mr Lee KY is the ONLY person in the whole WORLD, to have brought a country from 3rd world in 1st world in a single generation. I attest to this as it is clear that other countries like Taiwan and Japan have similar or larger development under a single ruler and political party. Then, both editors starts citing sources that are either a rehash of this article and may not be usable. (See talk page for arguments for and fro it)
I take as the debate about this issue reached a standstill as whenever I made revisions to it, either users will add it back.
Just a little add on: This article may have breached WP:NPOV, You don't need to take my words for it, just read it. Some of the paragraphs starts with "Lee is widely admired", "Lee was a captivating orator" and "Lee ... (was) of high intelligence." If might have been attributed to the Singapore media being used as a source. The media here is not free and tends to side the ruling party and ranked 149th in press freedom ranking.
Cheers.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I presented facts and two countries that clearly transformed from a single generation by a single ruling person and party/
How do you think we can help?
Need people who are analytical, weigh hard facts (look at Taiwan - Mr Sun Yat-sen, ruled for 42 years, brought Taiwan to what's today), instead of plainly relying on sources that are clearly ctrl+c and ctrl+v from Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Wrigleygum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Have already tried discussing this in the page, and put forth the following points, but were previously rejected:
The point about LKY being "1) the only person to have 2) transformed the nation from 3rd world to 1st in 3) a single generation" can be broken down into a 3 parts.
2) and 3) come out so common that I don't even know why there is an argument about this. Just recently at the funeral, one of the US senators said just that [28]. Granted that was a Singapore website reporting it, but unless you say the site is making up the quote, you can't argue with that. Many here [29][30].
The debate about what constitutes a generation is not up to us to decide. As Lee480 previously acknowledged, there are various definitions. What is undeniable is that this "one generation" description is used so often in reports around the world to describe LKY's accomplishment, that there is no need to define what a generation is. The sources says it as such, and it is not up to us to question why the sources used that word.
As for counterpoint of other people/parties having done the same, if some party did it, that does not disqualify LKY being the only one since you are comparing a party to a person. More importantly, those other leaders and parties that Lee480 used as rebuttals haven't been described as having fulfilled pts 2 and 3 of turning a third world country into a first in one generation. Unless Lee480 can show a source that explicitly describes another single person that fulfilled 2 and 3, he is just synthesizing his argument as he goes along. For example, I would not use this link to support the statement, since it only vaguely describes a "transformation" (too vague, not "third world to first"), even though it meets the "one generation" criteria.
The only arguable point would be the "only person/leader" arguement. I put forth 2 links as evidence, but they were rejected by Lee480 since he said the writer cut/pasted from wikipedia. Again this goes back to the point that if the source used the quote, and its a reliable source, its not up to us to decide that just because they use information from wikipedia, they are not credible. Per WP:CIRC, the sources practiced editorial control, and if they think that Wikipedia is reliable for that article, its allowed. Which is the case, as it was not a pure mirror of wiki's content, the authors of the articles I quoted had taken phrases here and there, but have rearranged it for the narrative they were writing.
Or, we can just write that LKY is "recognized"/"described" for this accomplishment. Putting it this way makes it not a full statement of fact, but acknowledges that he is known for this.
This actually relates to the points that Lee480 brought up about NPOV. A lot of the positive descriptions about Lee can actually qualified by adding a "LKY was known for", "LKY was described as", "XXX article described Lee as" etc. All the attributes prescribed to LKY can actually be found in publication and sources not from within Singapore media. And even then, that should not mean that local media sources cannot be used. Its just a matter of striking a balance in source and writing.
There is an ongoing effort to bring this article to GA status, so editors are only starting to work on this. It should get better as it goes along. Keep the discussion going there.
Summary of dispute by HaeB
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Lee Kuan_Yew discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
One editor objects to the naming of two individuals in the lede section to an article. It seems to me there is no good reason to delete them from the lede and no supporting regulation, from MOS or other sources has been provided to reason why they should not be included.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion via Talk Page. Re-written lede (reverted).
How do you think we can help?
If there is a rule supporting the omission of these names I would like to know of it. At present it seem like biased deleting on the part of one editor.
Summary of dispute by SleepCovo
As I have mentioned on the talk page, I do not think that Morrisson or Fairburn should be mentioned in the lead. I think it gives them undue bias against them as there are plenty of other politicians both alive and dead who have been accused, so I made the case that either they all be added to the lead or none put in at all. Both Morrison and Fairburn are mentioned later in the article, when it discusses the allegations laid out against them, this I have no problem with as in this section it talks about the other politicians who have been accused. But what I do not think is right is to single out these two individuals and only add these two names to the lead, when others are not being added. As of the present moment, the accusations are nothing more than speculations, yes the police are investigating them and the press have reported the allegations but none have been proven true, so to put their names at the forefront of this article, I believe would look like they were already guilty of child abuse, rather than merely accused.
Hello! My name is Kharkiv07 and I'm a volunteer moderator here and will be taking your case. Before we begin I'd like to note that I am not here to give an opinion on the issue, but rather to help you discuss it between the two of you so we can have the best possible resolution. I understand what the dispute is about, weather the names should be included or not, and I believe I understand your arguments. I'd like to start by you both giving your suggested compromise, not what you want the most but what you think you can deal with if the other was to agree with it. Maybe things like, adding more names or putting them into a different part of the article, just do what you think you could both agree on. Kharkiv07Talk 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by Stephenjh
Thank you for your assistance.
In response to Sleepcovo's comments above I'd like to say that adding the two names doesn't add any bias, on the contrary the bias is achieved by removing these two names from the list of accused. SleepCovo's edit did not remove all the names, nor did it add all the names, it selectively removed these two only. These two have not been "singled out" they have been included with the others to avoid partiality. It was SleepCovo's edit that 'singled them out'. The lede is quite clear, in that all the names are of accused only, that is stated. I see no reason to compromise on what I believe is selective, poor editing. The lede should "include[e] any prominent controversies" according to Wiki MOS and I think the names are important in assisting the reader's understanding of the gravity and seriousness of the article, and of the prominence of those involved in this suspected child abuse. Stephenjh (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by SleepCovo
Once again I must add that only allegations alleging that Fairburn "participated in the parties" have so far been made. The names of the politicians are sufficiently covered in the article later on and as such do not need to be included in the lead. Stephenjh has said that 'excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias' I disagree as if I have no objection to adding all the other named Conservative, Labour etc politicians to the lead, what I do object to is singling out just Morrison and Fairburn and adding them to the lead.
Those named in the lead are all people who have either been convicted of child abuse or are known to have abused a child, with the exception of Anthony Blunt who is a disgraced spy. Those named are: Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, the Soviet spy Anthony Blunt, the former British diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, and the Foreign Office barrister Colin Peters, who was later jailed in 1989 for being part of a network which abused over a hundred boys.
Nicholas Fairburn is only accused of having attended the Elm Street House and as such there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. As I have said I think that it is right to name him in the article, just not in the lead. SleepCovo (talk)!
First statement by Ghmyrtle
I have invited Ghmyrtle into the discussion, as they seem to have a large part in the disagreement as well -Kharkiv07 Only involved in the disagreement in so far as I have tried to resolve it through compromise and policy. My background is as an editor who has been involved with this article for many months, as the topic has developed and expanded beyond its initial scope.
More and more notable UK politicians and others - mostly, but not all, dead - have had allegations of sexual abuse and worse, up to and including murder, made against them, in reliable media sources, and the police inquiries have widened and extended accordingly. Some of those individuals have long been named in the lead, because they were by all accounts involved in "parties" at the guest house, and their names appeared early in the saga.
The dispute between Stephenjh and SleepCovo is simply over whether Fairbairn - a prominent deceased Conservative MP who was allegedly involved in the "parties" - and Morrison - another prominent deceased Conservative MP against whom allegations of murder have been made - should be mentioned in the lead. Allegations have been made against many others, who have (so far) not been named in the lead.
Serious allegations have been made against both Fairbairn and Morrison - but they are different allegations. Because they are both former Conservatives, they have tended to be lumped together in the argument - excluding both the names has been alleged to show political bias, though I reject that suggestion. Both Stephenjh and SleepCovo have, I think, taken somewhat over-simplistic views on this.
Having looked at it in more detail, my suggestion today - which could be seen as a compromise, though I think it's more policy-based - is to include Fairbairn's name in the introductory paragraphs on the basis of consistency with others named as having participated in the "parties" (such as Cyril Smith), but not to include Morrison as the allegations against him, though potentially more serious, are also less concrete.
As I've said on the talk page, I would not support the idea of removing all individuals' names from the lead, because including them gives a good indication to readers of the level of prominence of those involved.
Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ghmyrtle. Before we proceed, I believe that Ghmyrtle brings a good suggestion to the table and I'd like to hear your responses to it. Kharkiv07Talk 23:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a man and i want to add his children's names in the relevant field, while others (especially 1 editor) do not. They claim that the children are not notable, while i claim that many more prominent articles have the names of non-notable children listed; plus the non-notable spouses names seem to be an acceptable addition, so why not for the kids?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We discussed on the talk page, with no real settlement.
How do you think we can help?
I need some outside opinion who can read the talk page arguments and come to a conclusion that is not biased as a result of the previous edit conflict on the article.
Summary of dispute by WWGB
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Jihad Dib discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
– Discussion in progress.
_Schedule_December,_1945.jpg)
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NorthAmerica-WaterDivides.png){kind=link}
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.