Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Overland Limited (UP train)#"Corrections" (edit | subject | history | links | "Corrections" watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mackensen (talk · contribs)
• Centpacrr (talk · contribs)
• Tim Zukas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

"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]

Talk:Overland Limited_(UP_train)#"Corrections" discussion

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]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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 1907 The 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

Point #2

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, 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. "

• Official Guide: See image here Centpacrr (talk) 01:57, 23 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]
  • No objection. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 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]

I have found an additional source on names to go along with Beebe (pp. 13-14, 28-30) which is The Southern Pacific Bulletin, Vol XI, No 11. November, 1922, p. 4 which reads:

NAMES OF TWO WELL KNOWN S.P. TRAINS CHANGED

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]

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, 1898 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]

Point #5

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]

Any 1940s picture (e.g. http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49895/rec/10 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/50080/rec/30 or http://cdm16079.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/49924/rec/15 ) will clarify this one. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 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 Overland and 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 Overland during the war. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?

• Beebe writes at page 135: "In the early thirties The 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 Overland ran 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]

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971#Article Improvement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriWysong (talk · contribs)
• montanabw (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

• 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]

Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement discussion

First statement by volunteer moderator

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.

Kharkiv07^Talk 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kharkiv07^Talk 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 Dobie on 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]

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]

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. Kharkiv07^Talk 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. Kharkiv07^Talk 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

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:State of Somaliland (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Largoplazo (talk · contribs)
• Hadraa (talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow (talk · contribs)
• Middayexpress (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a longstanding article, which is on my watchlist but in which I am not actively involved and have no personal stake, about a political entity that was British Somaliland until 26 June 1960 and that merged to become part of the Somali Republic five days later. Today two people decided that the article should be merged to British Somaliland. Another person who disagrees has reverted it, and there have been several re-reversions. Two people were actively arguing over it, and I decided to review their arguments and do my own research and see if I could clarify things, serving as an unrequested WP:3O. I believe I have justified the article's existence, but the person who wants it redirected seems to be ignoring my commentary and repeating his original rationales, all of which, in my judgment, lack merit. I'm inclined to restore the article again, but I thought I'd open the question up to more people.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Nothing besides discussing it with them directly.

How do you think we can help?

Opinions from additional objective editors on my reasoning as well as that of the others, perhaps a different way of expressing the relevant considerations.

Summary of dispute by Hadraa

AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland which i think was wronge simply because there was a country called the state of somaliland and was from 26 June to 1 July 1960 and with all my best reliable sources which can be found on talk page. but both of AcidSnow and Middayexpress keep redirecting the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland Hadraa (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by AcidSnow

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

The post above is factually inaccurate. First, the dispute was originally between AcidSnow and Hadraa. AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland for reasons he explained beforehand on its talk page, and Hadraa subsequently took exception to that. The discussion then proceeded from there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:State of Somaliland discussion

First statement by volunteer moderator

As a volunteer at this noticeboard, I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. I don't have any specific knowledge about Somaliland or Somalia, and I don't intend to impose a solution; that isn't what this noticeboard is for. I expect the parties to present their own cases, and I will try to facilitate discussion. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is not merely requested. It is required here and elsewhere in Wikipedia.) I understand that there is a dispute about whether to merge or redirect this article. Will each of the parties please state concisely what they think should be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by Largoplazo

First statement by Hadraa

First statement by AcidSnow

First statement by Middayexpress

Posted to moderator's talk page: Hi Robert McClenon. The dispute over whether the State of Somaliland should redirect to British Somaliland or remain a stub was already resolved. All parties agreed that it should remain a stub. Given this, could you please close the discussion and note this agreement per the talk page? Best regards Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IRISZOOM (talk · contribs)
• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• ShulMaven (talk · contribs)
• Al Ameer son (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article Jabel Mukaber, some users are adding examples they can find on which attackers have come from the area. They also add some other details, like describing one attack and some residents erected a tent where they mourned the attacker. None of this belong to the article about the neighbourhood in Jerusalem but in the different articles mentioned.

Debresser and ShulMaven think the info is relevant, while I, Zero0000 and Al Ameer son have said the opposite. But we are stuck so I ask here for comments.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Give your comments so hopefully a resolution could be found.

Summary of dispute by Debresser

The sentence "A number of Jabel Mukaber residents have been involved in acts of anti-Israel violence" is relevant and very important. But it is unsourced. The rest of that paragraph and the two next paragraphs are examples. That means they are original research and synthesis, to support the unsourced statement by providing it with sources. That is not allowed on Wikipedia, and those paragraphs, including the unsourced statement, need to be removed. Which is really a shame, because the unsourced statement is actually true and, as I said, very important to have it in the article IMHO. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to find a source which supports the unsourced statement, and perhaps even mentions a few examples. But without such a source, I am afraid I agree this must go.

Summary of dispute by Zero0000

If someone from New York shoots a few people in Washington, do we put this in New York City? Obviously not, and few editors would even consider it. But this is exactly what several editors are doing here. They have trawled the internet for negative mentions of Jabel Mukaber and added them to the article regardless of whether they are about the village or not. With one exception that I'll mention in a moment, none of the items refer to events in the village and none of them tell us anything about the village beyond the trivial fact that some person came from there. Debresser argues on the talk page that these things are relevant because it is a "militant village that breads terrorists", but since the sources don't actually state that Debresser's argument is an admission of SYNTH. Finally, one event mentioned did actually happen in the village, I'll address it. When Palestinians have funerals it is common to erect a tent outside their former home for a few days to provide shelter for people who visit. This might get a mention in the newspaper if the person who died was notable, but it has no lasting significance and says nothing about the village where the home is. The text encourages us to think that some sort of memorial was constructed, but it wasn't; this fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by ShulMaven

Summary of dispute by Al Ameer son

Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse discussion

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes.

Location of dispute

Talk:Islam and antisemitism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• RebSmith (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Bkalafut (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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 ([1],[2] ), 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.

Summary of dispute by User:RebSmith

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 Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Hamas leadership, Hamza Yusuf, Imam Malik, etc.)

• using orientalists who hold contrary views to Bernard Lewis' opinions as sources: more "right-wing" analysis (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Adam Bostom, Ann Lambton, Shelomo Dov Goitein, etc.) and "left-wing" analysis (Joel Beinin and others).

• 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 [3] to the Washington Post [4], as well as in academic articles [5] [6] [7]

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 [8], the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [9], attacks on Jews and synagogues [10] [11] [12], blocking construction of mosques at "ground zero" [13], UK censoring of speakers considered "islamophobic" [14] [15]. "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]

Summary of dispute by User:Bkalafut

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]

Summary of dispute by User: Nableezy

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]

Summary of dispute by User:Zero0000

Islam and Antisemitism Discussion

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]

• (1) Is it advisable to use the following Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Hamas leadership, Hamza Yusuf, Imam Malik, etc.)

• (2) is it advisable to use (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Adam Bostom, Ann Lambton for the article on Islam and anti-Semitism, and if so, to what degree.

• (3) May MEMRI be used for quotations from Muslim clerics on the Qur'an.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Previous Discussions on this issue from 2010 by User:Hyperionsteel

Regarding the section on quotes from Muslim leaders and scholars, User:Nableezy and myself had two extensive discussions on this topic - on the article's talk page (now archived) Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism/Archive_7#OR and on the OR Noticeboard Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Islam_and_antisemitism - in August 2010. Although I was not named in this dispute, I believe they are relevant here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:03, 22 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: [16] "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]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#edits by xtremedood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)
• Xtremedood (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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]

Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood discussion

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 ^[1] 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.^[2]

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]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
• David-King (talk · contribs)
• Cliftonian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:David-King made a comprehensive edit to the Battle of Old Trafford article which introduced a great many things that, in my opinion, were either unencyclopaedic or detracted from the quality of the writing in the article. A full list of issues under discussion is available at Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I raised a discussion on the article talk page in which I itemised each of the issues I felt worsened the article and I attempted to bring in a third party to provide a different and unbiased perspective by posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to think someone here could provide a more experienced hand at resolving the dispute through having no vested interest in the topic under discussion and more staying power when it comes to explaining to either user involved why one version is better than the other.

Summary of dispute by David-King

Summary of dispute by Cliftonian

I joined the discussion after PeeJay requested a third opinion at WP:FOOTY. The conversation already seemed quite heated to me (PeeJay had reverted David-King's edits, then initiated discussion) and I asked both parties to calm down. I listed the disputed proposed changes and gave my opinion on each. In my recollection my views coincided closer with PeeJay's than David-King's. PeeJay was unable to continue taking part in the conversation after he was temporarily blocked over an unrelated matter. David-King and I went on debating for a few days; on some issues we reached compromise solutions we both found satisfactory but on others we were unable to do so. After about a week of silence on my part—I must be frank and say I don't feel so involved in this issue as to devote large sections of my time to a vigorous argument about it—David-King made edits to the page implementing the agreed compromises where they existed, and implementing his preferred wordings where agreement had not been reached. He (not totally unreasonably, in my view) said he took the silence to be tacit approval. I do not know if he was aware PeeJay was prevented from editing or responding at the time. An IP editor reverted much of what David-King changed, leading him to revert it back. On his return from the aforementioned unrelated suspension PeeJay reverted the edits again, restarted the discussion and the situation soon returned to basically where it had been when I entered. PeeJay asked me on my talk page to step in again, and I recommended bringing the matter here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits discussion

Volunteer note: User:David-King wasn't properly notified of this request. He has now been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Rape in India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable allegations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TCKTKtool (talk · contribs)
• OccultZone (talk · contribs)
• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs)
• Padenton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some seem to be removing content saying its not proven yet there are quite a few references. They are also removing other pieces that are well referenced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many reverts

How do you think we can help?

Give a outside view from a impartial view point.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone

Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao

I'd like to hands off on this, seriously.... Its sucking me back in even though I though the issue has been resolved. I've been accused of plagiarism(even though I was merely reverting a previous edit), socking(Please someone run a Checkuser) among other things. The only thing I've mainly done to the article is to reorganize content, revert what I though were questionable edits, and beef up existing content with a few more facts and sources. The only significant thing I added fresh to the article was small section to end off the "reported rape on foreigners" section stating that because the reported rapes of their citizens in India (which is already mentioned in the article), a number of countries have issued updated travel advisories (the correlation of which is explicitly stated on the advisories and the news reports about the advisory updates themselves), and that the tourism minister has taken note of it and taken action to address these concerns (that one is fairly straight forward). And one of the editors I was discussing this with is figuratively doing the "finger in the ear going la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" jig by repeatedly removing my answer to him [17]. If we can see some editors/admins who have not been involved in this article previously, to have a look at it, and make a unbiased judgement call on it. Thats all I hope to see here. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Padenton

Submission here is WP:FORUMSHOP. This dispute has already been reported here as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TCKTKtool_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:_.29 I will provide my summary in a few hours when I can give this a little more attention. ― Padenton |☎  23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations discussion