Talk:Rio Grande 268

Citations and Tone Concerns

Looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):

• 1 At least two citations (#15 and #33) are to Wikipedia itself and not first or third party sources.
• 2 Citation #22 is to User:DTParker1000's own post on another website.
• 3 Multiple citations rely on the same author, Jerry Day's articles in The Prospector, which make me concerned that even when accurate third party sources are being used they are extremely limited to one perspective.
• 4 The citations notably from Robert Athearn, Lucius Beebe & Charles Clegg, and Gilbert Lathrop don't allay my complaints of weasel words and fluff text since that might as well be the holy trinity of railroad fluff text in my personal opinion (not to mention the many complaints elsewhere regarding Beebe & Clegg's sloppy research suggesting they make poor sources to use in general). Regardless, the tone of Athearn, Beebe & Clegg and Lathrop while often making for a good story fail to imitate the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia and support the fluff text used in the article.

Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Xboxtravis7992 is wrong. My response to his accusations is below:

1. I have no idea what xboxtravis7992 is talking about on his "Item #1." The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims.

Citation #15 is to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman.

Citation #33 is to the book "High Road to Promontory," by George Kraus.

The section I submitted on the engine's historic significance was only 7 paragraphs long, yet it had 42 citations! Every one of them was to a book or a published article. None of them were to "Wikipedia itself" as xboxtravis7992 maintains.

2. Xboxtravis7992 is wrong on his Item #2 also. Citation #22 was to the book "Rebel in the Rockies," by Robert G. Athearn. I presume what xboxtravis7992 is referring to is actually Citation #34, which was to an article I wrote entitled "The Significance of the Railroad," in the Ridgway Railroad Museum Newsletter. Just because I wrote the article doesn't mean that it is not factual, as xboxtravis7992 implies. This citation, by the way, was only one of three citations for the sentence in question. The other two were Athearns' book mentioned above, and Kraus's book, also mentioned above.

By the way, the sentence in question simply stated that railroad freight rates were lower than the cost of transport by wagon or on the back of a mule. This fact is so obvious as to belie the need for ANY citations. But regardless, instead of attempting to dispute the fact, xboxtravis7992 attacks the source.

3. Jerry B. Day is the highly respected author of three different articles on C-16 engines (D&RG 223 is a C-16 engine). I read recently that he is now in the process of writing a book on the subject. Again, xboxtravis7992 does not dispute the text, he simply attempts to attack the source.

4. Speaking of "fluff"... This is another example of xboxtravis7992 offering no refutation of the facts in the text, but merely making ad hominem attacks on the authors - in this case four of them. Sheesh.

When I was in school, we were taught that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to make personal attacks.

I stand by my text and citations. Xboxtravis7992, for reasons best known to himself, is displaying a pattern of finding any imaginable excuse to reduce or eliminate the section in this article on the historical significance of D&RG 223. This is the THIRD time he has done this.

The first time he did this, he disputed a couple of facts, and claimed that the historical significance section was inadequately sourced (even though it had sources cited for every single paragraph). Using this pretext, he then ELIMINATED the entire section.

I resubmitted it, and modified some of the text and doubled the number of sources.

Then, he ELIMINATED the entire section again, claiming it was "extraneous." He replaced the section on the historical significance of the engine with a section going into exceedingly meticulous detail on the mechanical history of the engine and its movements. Speaking of "extraneous" information... He included nothing on its historical significance.

I strongly disagree with the editorial philosophy displayed by xboxtravis7992. If we were to apply his definition of "extraneous," then the Wikipedia article on the Cotton Gin should be limited to the mechanical history of the relic, and not include a section on its historical significance.

Similarly, if we apply the editorial philosophy of xboxtravis7992, then the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only be history of the ship itself, and not include information on its historical significance.

He wants the article on D&RG 223 to go on for page after page on the mechanical aspects and movements of the engine, but can't stomach 7 short paragraphs on the engine's historical significance?

And, then he accuses ME of being "unencyclopedic?" Sheesh.

This is nonsense.

Now, he accuses my section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 as being "fluff" and he attacks my citations. This is also nonsense. He is simply finding any excuse he can to eviscerate the section on the engine's historical significance.

As xboxtravis7992 himself admits, he is "digging up this dead horse" again. Yes, he is. And, he is wrong to do so.

I disagree with his editorial policy. I have cited multiple sources, and they are written by respected authors. Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even bother to challenge the accuracy of the text. He just accuses it of being "fluff." I strongly disagree with this accusation, and would appreciate it if a panel of other Wikipedia editors could review this series of malicious edits by xboxtravis7992 and put a stop to it.

Thank you. DTParker1000 (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I feel my emotions are heated enough that to maintain civility the best thing I can request is for a Wikipedia:Third opinion look to have a neutral third party overview the situation and aid us in mediation. I cannot see an easy resolution to this without the aid of arbitration. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I will add this, my issues regarding citations were in regards to the February 20th version of the page, which is what I would have seen as the text on the 23rd when I made the original post. All the numbers match up to the citations I have issue with there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_268&oldid=1209040674 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I read through this, so I'm going to quickly address some points. I also read the dispute on your talk pages as well, because I needed to piece together what else was going on. To start, Whack! You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you and some others did something silly. Accusing each other of vandalism and malicious editing doesn't seek to lessen the dispute. Okay so, for one, whether or not someone is disputing the facts if the source is unreliable is irrelevant. We use reliable sources, if all we have to cite something is an unreliable source, we wouldn't include that bit, if it was contested. Which it was. It's for the same reason why citing wikipedia is considered unacceptable. Despite the information there being verifiable and very likely true, the nature of the medium makes it unreliable as a source. WP:PUFFERY is grounds for the removal and contesting of content. Typically, you two should discuss it before adding it back in. This isn't school or debate class, this is wikipedia. Your goal isn't to "win" the debate/dispute, it's to gain consensus and try to find an agreement with your coeditor on the same project, working on the same page. Discussion, not debate per se. Please note that the cotton gin article contains a small section, and I agree that the scope creep was to the point of making it unclear what the article was originally about - see WP:UNDUE. If the article itself was longer, a section like that could stand, without the puffery, so long as the scope stayed on topic. Frankly, I agree that the attributed puffery isn't appropriate for wikipedia, and that the depth of the history, while interesting, was undue weight. Maybe that can be resolved by adding more to the article, and more information to the article. If all we have are sources giving a single perspective, then that's the perspective we give, by nature of the project. Frankly, I think this should go to WP:DRN. There isn't much more I can say other than you should try to find how much history you can add, and agree should be in there. Sorry if this comes off as blunt, but there's no way to respond to text walls without some curtness. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the dispute has shifted over onto the Rio Grande 223 article talk page, and other editors have begun to chime in; so DRN would be a good option at this point since we now have multiple editors with their own thoughts contributing as well. I appreciate your effort to provide a third opinion. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Please state your arguments and, please, don't comment on each other, only on the dispute at hand. Plese keep it to a paragraph. Please refrain from another WP:WALLOFTEXT, and don't call edits malicious

Third opinion

DarmaniLink (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Xboxtravis7992)

....

The information in the current edits of Rio Grande 223 and prior revisions here in Rio Grande 268 bloated the article with conjecture and caused scope creep by expanding the history of the articles beyond the scope on the engines. I find the current revision of the 268 page good, but am concerned by the continued need to keep re-adding that text back to the 223 page. Broad claims such as "The era of the engine's MOST importance" and other issues continue to stand out to me as more opinion based than fact. Ultimately, such claims on railroad history backed up by poor third party sources; do not belong on either page and hamper readability and muddy the purpose of the page. DTParker1000's continued effort to restore the text to these pages does more harm than good to the articles. --Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by DarmaniLink

....

DarmaniLink (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)