Talk:Deerfield–Montague railroad bridge

Is the name of the bridge correct?

I found this 1894 map which lists this bridge as the Fitchburg Railroad - PennySpender1983 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has an official name. The railroad operator/owner has changed names a couple of times. Aside from what you said, it was also known as the Boston and Maine Railroad, for example. --Polaron | Talk 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What Polaron said. All I know is it may be functional, but it's fuuuuuuuugly! I'm afraid I have to admit my opinion of it is WP:OR... :-D - Denimadept (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Source quality and applicability

Well, now that we have to slog through all of this again, it's time for a genuine critical examination of the sources thrown up by the Keep voters. In this article, the key source was the Google Books bit on Alvin Crocker. Nowhere in that text, nor on the page referenced, was this bridge referenced or mentioned, or in fact any bridge to Turners referenced or mentioned, and User:PennySpender1983's edit claiming "Turners Falls would not be what it is today without the existence of this bridge across the Connecticut River." with the Crocker book as a source is just plain invention. At this point, I'm more than happy to AfD individually and intend to do so, if the other sources thrown up at the last minute turn out to be just as much of a sham.  Ravenswing  20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Thank you. - Denimadept (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, please keep in mind that we're not on a deadline here. This is a volunteer effort done as we have time. If you insist on getting all hot under the collar about it, perhaps you should take a break from Wikipedia for a while. - Denimadept (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement regarding Turners Falls most likely refers not to this bridge but the Turners Falls Road bridge. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ravenswing: "now that we have to slog through all of this again" ?? How long was this bridge again? When was it built again? This is a significant crossing of the Connecticut River. It's reasonable to have as one of a series, just as we have articles on every crossing of the Hudson River until the river is no more than a creek. You seem to have removed material here without good cause, near as I can tell, and perhaps even material that supports the very fact tags you added. There are lots of other things to do, perhaps you should let this quiet backwater work on these articles and come back at some future point to see if there's really an issue because I'm not finding your input here very helpful yet. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us review: the position of the Overturn proponents at deletion review, hotly repeated for several days, was that new sources were added, and that the articles were deleted anyway. It was quite a shock to see, in the very first article I reviewed after restoration, that the text cited in the article blatantly misrepresented the sources or just did not pertain to the subject outright. Is that the case in all the restored articles? At this point, I would have been much more sanguine about letting the "quiet backwater" work if there was any guarantee that the work would be accurate, directly pertinent to the subjects of the articles and faithfully represent the sources proffered. But let me, for openers, address Lar directly: you claim this is a "significant" crossing of the Connecticut? Upon what basis do you make any such assertion?  Ravenswing  21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding that the reference and text deleted concerns the Fitchburg Railroad of which this bridge happens to be a crossing over a major river. The bridge apparently does not have a "proper name" so you won't find its specific name in the source but the history of the railroad and its alignment is very relevant to this article. --Polaron | Talk 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RGT, Your deletion of half the contents of the Springfield Terminal railroad bridge, Deerfield article after an AFD was overturned is highly inappropriate. When you have a concern, rather than non-constructively deleting material and reference citations, please add "Clarify" and "Fact" tags/templates rather than deleting half of an articles contents, especially when the "dust has not even settled yet".

In your deletion of material which you personally viewed as "questionable" there was:

• roughly the exact quotation which you questioned; yes, part of it was not an exact quote - you actually have to READ a chapter or two of the text which was cited, and the contributor to the article merged half of a direct quotation with a paraphrased summary of a couple of chapter's contents of the cited publication. "The Life and Times of Alvah Crocker" Introduction says "... Alvah Crocker, whose public works - the building of the Fitchburg Railroad, its extension to the West through the Hoosac Tunnel, the establishment of a great paper manufactory, and the founding of Turners Falls - have done so much for Massachusetts". You have to read through a bunch of the text about the Fitchburg Railroad and Turners Falls to piece the rest together, but Page 41 has text which is reasonably similar to that which you deleted. It is inappropriate to delete material without accurately researching it, a more appropriate edit would be to add "Clarify" or "Fact" tags/templates. LeheckaG (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the entirety of the online text, actually, and I'm quite astonished. Wikipedia's requirement for sourcing does not permit inferences, suppositions, extrapolations or any other violation of WP:SYN, WP:NOR or the like. You cannot just assume that, well, Crocker was important to Turners Falls, and well, he owned a railroad going by town, and hey, here's a railroad bridge, so it just must all tie together. You have to have a source explicitly saying so. User:PennySpender1983 made just such an assertion. That assertion was false. It is inappropriate to keep inaccurate material that was improperly researched, and there is nothing about an overturned AfD that immunizes the article from proper editing.  Ravenswing  21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I doubt you read or searched the entirety of the text, since it's a preview in Google Books. That means the entire text is not available... that you failed to find something does not mean it's not in the published text. Second, the Connecticut is a major river of the Northeast. All crossings of it, while it's a major river, are significant. Just as all crossings of the Hudson are. Or have I just given you something else to go start ill founded AfDs on? Again, I suggest you go find some other area of the project to work in, leave these people to their work, and come back in a while, with helpful, positive, constructive suggestions for improvement. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled Ravenswing's removals back. Further discussion of them can occur here but talk page consensus seems to be forming that they were inappropriate. Feel free to add fact tagging if desired. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of this bridge

Let's see...

1. The USGS map (given as a reference) labels the railroad using the bridge as the Fitchburg Railroad.
2. Alvah Crocker was president of the Fitchburg Railroad.
3. The Fitchburg Railroad article documents the opening of the line from Grout's Corner to Deerfield in 1850 (as part of the Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad). (It is kind of difficult to ferry a train across the Connecticut River, so I conclude that this is when the bridge opened.)
4. If you follow this railroad northwest on the USGS maps (and yes, I did), it leads to the Hoosac Tunnel (well verified that Mr. Crocker was part of the effort to construct).
5. The biography on Crocker gives details on his business interests including paper mills, banking, the Fitchburg Railroad, the Vermont & Massachusetts Railroad, and the development of Turners Falls.
6. The book is quoted word-for-word in the footnote, and this quote is found clear as day at the bottom of page 41, just like my footnote says. (I always strive to use and fully complete a citation template, and all you have to do is READ the footnote properly!)

The article then contains the logical conclusion (through a paraphrase of the book) that since this bridge was one of the first pieces of infrastructure in place before factories started moving to Turners Falls, that Turners Falls would not be what it is today without the existence of this bridge across the Connecticut River. I stand by my previous edit. I invite comments on this before it is restored. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOR and WP:SYN, official policies of this encyclopedia:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research ... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

You cannot assert that this is a "significant crossing" of the Connecticut without explicitly quoting a reliable source which says so. You cannot assert that this particular bridge was crucial in the development of Turners Falls (for instance) without quoting a reliable source which explicitly says so.  Ravenswing  21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like that probably needs to be added as a direct quote and indicated as such with qualifiers saying something to the effect of "According to the biography by so and so....". The original phrasing made it appear as if this were something ordinary. --Polaron | Talk 02:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, that establishes the notability/importance of the earlier bridge, not the replacement. Usually replacements are as notable, or more, than what they replace though. But not always, especially if the replacement is not in exactly the same place. For example, the Kingston-Port Ewen Suspension Bridge is notable (and is in the NRHP) but its replacement, built somewhat downstream, the John T. Loughran Bridge, is arguably less notable (still enough for an article, but not NRHP level notability). Now if THIS bridge were in the NRHP, or the HAER, that would be that, anything in either of those places is prima facie notable enough for an article, but unless I missed it, it's not. ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Change from bridge to crossing. (Lar, You seem to be hung up on the fact the parts of the bridge have been maintained and changed out through the years. When the ashalt get changed on a highway, does that make it a different road? When the ties are changed on a railroad does that make it a different rail line? Why then does the replacement of parts of a bridge automatically make it a different bridge?) I consider the footnote sufficient qualifier that it is per the biography. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to spar, we're mostly in agreement, but we write articles about bridges, not crossings. Looking at the pic of this bridge, there is no way that this bridge dates to 1850. It's a steel truss. I can give you explicit examples of where we have several articles about successive bridges at the same exact location, if you need me to. I suspect this bridge, as the successor bridge at this crossing, inherits the notability of the predecessor. But it's almost certainly not the same bridge. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more detail and a proper qualifer would help. Turners Falls would not be what it is today without the fact that in 1850 Crocker built a bridge in this location to carry trains across the river, but please note that this is not the same exact one that is shown in the picture because the railroad engineers have been trying to make sure that trains don't fall in the river by replacing bits (and major pieces) now and again. I am trying to add notability to the HISTORY section and you are acting like I am saying that this exact steel was erected in 1850. How about we just add a section called Design and construction where the truss type and age of the current bridge is presented. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you can find a reliable source stating explicitly that, it's all good. What you're doing, instead, is trying to invent notability, and you cannot do that, based around personal speculation ... which come to that has a large, gaping flaw in it, because given the proliferation of railroads, what was notable wasn't that Turners Falls had a rail bridge (heck, it has three rail bridges today). It would have been notable if it didn't, because towns in Massachusetts without railroad stations were quite uncommon.  Ravenswing  02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that three separate railroad companies ran through Montague (two of which built specific branch lines to serve Turners Falls) does signify the importance of this town as a rail crossroads of sorts. The linked MHC report on Montague does discuss that Crocker played an important role in the development of Turners Falls but we should indeed take care not to say more than what our sources say explicitly. --Polaron | Talk 03:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how much more explicit the reliable source I have already listed can be. The published biography says, "Incomplete as was his work there, Turners Falls owes its existence as a town to him." This is the direct quote that I put in the footnote. His work can in no way be disputed to include (1) the Fitchburg Railroad and the V&MRR (he was president of these), (2) the construction of the first bridge at this location in 1850 (by the RR companies he was president of), and (3) opening of the Hoosac Tunnel in 1875. So simply turn the sentence around. "Turners Falls owes its existence as a town to Crocker and his (incomplete) work." So what I previously placed in the article is true: "Turners Falls would not be what it is today without the existence of this bridge across the Connecticut River." This bridge, this rail line, was the first infrastructure built of Alvah Crocker's attention and investment to Turners Falls. We need to find a way to say that in the article. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also the minor detail that it almost certainly washed away in 1936. Effectively all the bridges around this location did so, knocked off their foundations by ice, water, and a wooden covered bridge floating down the river from just south of the current General Pierce Bridge by the big flood that year. It did for two of the spans of the Canalside Rail Trail Bridge as well, and if I understand correctly, a trolley bridge which remains in the water near its original location without being replaced. Also, if I understand correctly, this covered bridge continued down the river to do mean and nasty things to the predecessor to the current Sunderland Bridge. An article about the 1936 flood would probably be a Good Idea. - Denimadept (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Almost" being a key word about the flood; while some bridges were total losses as a result of the 1936 flood, others survived. Yes, most probably needed repair work and at least thorough inspections. Repair work is not the same as replacement though. For metal truss bridges over masonry piers the key inspection issue would be determining if the piers got undercut by "scour" from the high water-flows or if the metal superstructure received significant damage from "floating" debris carried downstream. In either case, as long as a bridge did not totally collapse (i.e. either piers or superstructure survived) then it is usually considered the "same" bridge, even if either needed significant work short of total replacement. LeheckaG (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do things stand?

Talk seems to have died down. Are the notability concerns resolved? This edit suggests some notability to me. Are we there yet? ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where it stands is that there hasn't been a single WP:V or WP:N concern met, and the article still contains that info about Crocker that doesn't in any way, shape or form pertain to this bridge. I thought I'd bend over backwards to be reasonable and give some time for the people who fought so hard to claim that these crossings were not only notable but that they would have (as WP:V requires) significant coverage in reliable sources to prove their case. It's been over a month now, and high time to take this back to AfD.  Ravenswing  03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'm moving the paragraph under consideration here:

Alvah Crocker, a paper and railroad magnate and U.S. Representative led the construction of the Fitchburg Railroad and the Hoosac Tunnel. With the construction of this infrastructure and his purchase of large land holdings in the area, Mr. Crocker worked to establish Turners Falls as a major manufacturing center.

- Denimadept (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good stuff for an article on Turners Falls but doesn't do much for establishing notability of the bridge in my view. However the edit I cite, showing eligibility for NRHP, and showing it's the 6th oldest surviving metal bridge in MA, ices the notability issue in my view, if the source is reliable enough. We all know state governments don't always get everything right, but I'd want to see a counter argument that it ISN'T reliable, in this case. This article would easily survive AfD at this point I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 10:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable," as far as the state government for a source, isn't the issue. "Significant coverage" is. WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." A mere sentence or two doesn't cut it. Heck, this bridge hasn't been deemed important enough to get a real name.  Ravenswing  13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Most bridges don't have real names, notable or not. Golden Gate Bridge is a description, not a name. - Denimadept (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a name with over six million hits, and you'd find very few people who'd agree that it's not a name. By contrast, outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, there are exactly six G-hits for "Springfield Terminal railroad bridge" + "Deerfield". That kind of coverage just about always gets burned at AfD.  Ravenswing  14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it gets hits doesn't make it a name. The San Francisco Bay Bridge is another like that. You'll get lots of hits on that description, but using the actual name James "Sunny Jim" Rolph Bridge will mostly get you references that say the name doesn't get much use. Anyway, this is a side-issue. The important question here is, what makes a bridge notable? What's the lower limit? I suspect, keeping to just the List of crossings of the Connecticut River, that there are a total of 25 crossings which I can claim are definitely notable.

1. Chester - Hadlyme Ferry
2. Arrigoni Bridge
3. Rocky Hill - Glastonbury Ferry
4. Morgan G. Bulkeley Bridge
5. Memorial Bridge (Massachusetts)
6. (maybe) Willimansett Bridge
7. Calvin Coolidge Bridge
8. Norwottuck Rail Trail Bridge (notable for design and per Donald C. Jackson, see refs)
9. Canalside Rail Trail Bridge (maybe)
10. Gill - Montague Bridge
11. French King Bridge
12. Schell Bridge
13. United States Navy Seabees Bridge
14. Vilas Bridge
15. Arch Bridge (New Hampshire) (mainly because of the previous bridge on this site, wait'll you see the images!)
16. Cornish-Windsor Covered Bridge
17. Ledyard Bridge
18. Morey Memorial Bridge (cool arch structure. the images! See Samuel Morey. Think I'll do this bridge next. Hm, similaries to the older United States Navy Seabees Bridge, which was built at the same time. Coincidence? Prolly not.)
19. Bedell Covered Bridge
20. Ranger Bridge (an impressive looking bridge)
21. Mount Orne Covered Bridge
22. Janice Peaslee Bridge (lots of fairly recent coverage due to the restoration effort)
23. Columbia Bridge (New Hampshire)
24. Pittsburg-Clarksville Covered Bridge
25. U.S. Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River (northern-most bridge on the river)

I may not have all these right, as I don't have all the images on-line at the moment for me to verify which bridge I'm talking about, but you get the idea. Note that not all of these have articles yet. The covered bridges do, the northern-most bridge does, but not all of the rest because AfD proposals have largely put me off writing the blasted things, even though I have pictures, usually several, of every last bridge on the river. And of the two remaining ferries, but those are posted.

The best place to discuss "what is a notable crossing" isn't even here, it's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#What is notable?. Until that discussion reaches consensus, I say we can't do another major AfD discussion since we don't know what the limits are. - Denimadept (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a bit more that's notable than that. I would say anything that has a "proper name" from the time it was opened would be notable. Crossings where bridges kept being rebuilt after repeatedly being washed away are also important enough to merit their own article. Sad to say, I think this particular rail bridge does not qualify under either scenario. As it stands, the article is mostly a summary regarding the railroad line. Regarding the edit mentioned above by Lar, that was an error that was meant for an adjacent bridge. --Polaron | Talk 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was being fairly harsh, granted. There may be more bridges which are on the NRHP which I didn't list. The Morey bridge is on the NRHP, so it's "in", but I have to find the ID. - Denimadept (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not... Projects do not get to set notability guidelines independent of overall notability. If, however, a project comes up with a reasonable yardstick in their specialty area, it ought to be adopted unless there is some overwhelming reason not to. That said... we have for a long time said "in NRHP == Notability". Regardless of mention elsewhere, hits, what have you, it's notable, QED. This bridge (if it IS this bridge and not an error, if so, which bridge is it???) has been judged eligible but isn't actually IN NRHP... yet. Just because no one actually did the spadework, presumably. So if something SHOULD be in NRHP but isn't, is it notable by default? Interesting question. One that needs debating somewhere larger scoped than this discussion. (personally I'd tend to say yes but on reflection I admit it's possibly debateable). This bridge, also, if the source is believed, is the 6th oldest steel bridge in MA. ... does that make it notable QED? What if it was the oldest in the world? Certainly, regardless of mention elsewhere. What if it was the oldest in the US? Also certainly. What if it was the oldest in MA? Almost certainly. Where does this line get crossed and inherent end, though? Dunno. For a state the size of MA, I'd say somewhere lower than 6... at least the oldest 10 qualify... I'd say... ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case, what happens if the railroad replaces it? - Denimadept (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking hypothetically and generically, since notability does not expire, a structure that meets the requirements of WP:N would do so whether or not it still existed, so (say) if the French King Bridge fell into the river tomorrow, it would remain notable per WP:N, and still entitled to an article. Its replacement, however, would have to meet WP:N and WP:V on its own merits; notability is not contagious. As to whether something "eligible" for NRHP should be considered notable ... hell no; that's a WP:CRYSTAL violation, in that nothing and no one becomes notable simply because it may be possible for them to meet notability criteria at some indefinite point down the road. (That doesn't prejudice an article against recreation later if it comes to meet the criteria down the road, of course.)

That aside, speaking to the project's notability discussion, Lar's quite right: there's absolutely nothing in policy requiring all bridge-related AfDs to be tabled until and unless the project comes up with notability criteria, because Wikiprojects don't even get to set binding guidelines ... and that aside, that notability discussion is over a month old now, without anyone even proffering a firm proposal, let alone one adopted by consensus. This article was created over a year ago now, and if reliable sources discussing it in depth haven't emerged in that time, then the premise shouldn't be to try to find some reason, any reason, to call it notable: it's to determine that it just doesn't meet WP:N.  Ravenswing  17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Providence and Worcester railroad bridge which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)