Talk:Norfolk and Western Railway

Railway Presidents
Would there be any value in a list of the presidents of the Norfolk and Western, as opposed to the current list of "leaders"?--Foxhound 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereco
The section of the article regarding Dereco was incorrect: it stated that Dereco consisted of DH, EL, BM, CNJ, and RDG. Only DH and EL were part of Dereco. The others had been proposed for merger into Dereco but that never happened.

I made the appropriate changes to that section.

—BMRR (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Segregation
How was the railroad & predecessors involved with racial segregation & discrimination? I know that Norfolk VA was a segregated city.
 * Reply: Pretty much any aspect of life was affected by the Separate but equal (equal but separate) laws. The US Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana law in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) that in effect produced reworded Jim Crow Laws. It wasn't until between 1954 US Supreme Court ruled on several cases referred to as Brown v. Board of Education (of Topeka, Kansas) which overturned "separate but equal" laws These decisions did not stop racial segregation and discrimination, nor did the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Separate accommodations were used by pretty much "all" the railroads that was allowed because of our US Supreme Court allowed it. Even Norfork has a history such as the the Norfolk 17.

Article issues

 * This article was tagged in 2011 as needing more inline citations and has more than one 2013 inline "citation needed" tag. The article was assessed as B-class which includes The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. (B- #1) This has obviously not been addressed because there is much content (3603 words not counting the embedded lists) of "readable prose size" missing the required text–source integrity and the article only has 13 references. Having 20 entries in the "Further reading" section does not satisfy the criteria. I did not look, but at a point, a bot was assessing the article projects so they would all be consistent. If that is the case I have a disdain for this practice.
 * There have been 214 editors yet the B-class article was not in compliance with policies and guidelines. With the length of time the article has been tagged (interim step) I would think the information that BURDEN states: editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references would be moot if the article was cropped back to start-class. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. and The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. has to be considered.
 * It is not expected of others to have to acquire all of the listed reading materials and comb through them for verification and to add citations. With so much unsourced material it is not hard to surmise that there could be some original research and nearly impossible to look for possible plagiarism. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)