Talk:Rio Grande 223/Archive 1

total production
Did you intend to take out when you added
 * totalproduction =53 (Grant-28) (Baldwin-25)
 * uicclass = 1′D n2 ?

If so, why? . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture
I've uploaded a photo of the locomotive in its current (ugly) condition. Does it belong in the article? Ntsimp (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Thank you very much. And thank you for adding it to National Register of Historic Places listings in Weber County, Utah -- while we use sister photos (if necessary) in the article, the Listing photo must be the real thing.


 * Also, could you check the coords and see if they're right? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're pretty exact. Ntsimp (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have two pictures on Commons- one of the completed new cab and one of the boiler. Could someone include those on the article? I can't seem to get it to work. D&amp;RGW 223 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on D&RGW 223. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100111044158/http://history.utah.gov/findAids/C01583/C1583ff.XML to http://history.utah.gov/findAids/C01583/C1583ff.XML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on D&RGW 223. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104134020/http://www.theunionstation.org:80/museumsrailroad.html to http://www.theunionstation.org/museumsrailroad.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

223 Restoration
Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans to restore Rio Grande 223 into operating condition? 68.226.233.81 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As of now, no. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Disputes
I am considering moving up the ongoing edit disputes to Dispute resolution possibly to seek a third opinion, however much of my concerns have been expressed on WikiProjectTrains and on User:DTParker1000's talk page. I will admit I have been fairly blunt with my opinions on the matter elsewhere, and to assume good faith editing I think it is best to offer a chance to explain my continued concerns here offering DTParker1000 and other users a chance to express their thoughts potentially avoiding escalation to Dispute resolution.

With that said, I stand firmly by my concern that the ongoing edits to the Rio Grande 223 page are detrimental to the page's purpose and degrade from the original quality of the piece. These are the primary issues I keep coming back to:


 * Relevance: My key issue here, is that significant portions of the text as it currently stands are not relevant to Rio Grande 223 itself. Grand visions of sweeping manifest destiny through the mountains and deserts between Denver and Ogden are in the text, with many broad claims about how the region compares to the East and how the railroad improved shipping. My main question is a solid why? What does this broad overview of the railroad with questionably broad statements add to the history of 223 in particular? Significant portions of the text are quoted from other Wikipedia articles such as History of rail transportation in the United States and History of rail transport which have been added to those articles by DTParker1000. While such a broad overview of the topic may be relevant to those broader view articles, what are they doing in the history of 223 itself? It is scope creep, and pushing beyond the relevance of 223's own history.


 * Sourcing: I dispute the accuracy of relying so-heavily on some third party sources, particularly Robert G. Athearn's Rebel of the Rockies, and Lucius Beebe's and Charles Clegg's Narrow Gauge Through the Rockies. Mid-20th century railroad books are fraught with error and poor research, and in retrospect are best viewed as entertainment or folklorist pieces and not serious scholarly text. Likewise I view Gilbert Lathrop's "Little Engines Big Men" as another piece of railroad folklore work, and while I wouldn't discard Lathrop's working knowledge the author is known for his tall tales and railroad versions of a "fish story" in his writing. I am also concerned that the reliance on Jerry Day articles from The Prospector which while better in terms of historicity, shows a limited pool of citations being used in the edits.


 * Photos: Continued edits are adding photos of sister locomotives from Grant or Baldwin's similar designs, including photos of DRGW 278 on display at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. If this is an article about Rio Grande 223, what does it add to the presentation by showing photos of other locomotives? I have said before and will say it again, although Grant built their locomotives following similar specifications to the Baldwin locomotives; they were different enough that showing photos of Baldwin built engines in particular I find to be misleading, and their shared classification on the railroad was more-so a matter of convenience for the Rio Grande in rating the machines to shared characteristics like weight. Even if they are similar machines, I do not understand when photos of 223 itself exists why the article shows photos of other locomotives.


 * Claims: Noted in several of the revisions are broad unsupported claims and speculation which remain a repeated problem through-out the edits such as this photo caption "D&RGW 223 is owned by the city of Ogden, Utah, which is considering how to restore it, and whether or not to incorporate some of its 1800s design elements." According to whom? The last major news articles on the 223's transfer-ship of ownership to Ogden did not mention anything about reconsidering if they would restore the engine to an as built appearance or not. My friends who were involved with the Golden Spike Railway and Locomotive Historical Society before their restoration was shut down note that the reason they chose to restore the engine to it's final look on the Rio Grande was due to the loss of significant original material over the engine's lifetime, and to restore it to an 1880 look would have required even further alteration such as shortening the smokebox. With both the experience of the people who worked on the engine and the lack of any news source from Ogden City claiming they are even considering a 1880 restoration, why does the text continue to assert such claims? Likewise the additions conflate the D&RG and the D&RGW.Ry as "one in the same" Rio Grande, and that is a misunderstanding of how the Colorado Road and the Utah Road operated in the 1880's.

I can point out other concerns I have, however for brevity those are my continued issues with the ongoing edits. I do feel very passionate regarding the subject, however; to assume good faith I feel it is best to offer an opportunity to discuss it here directly before considering seeking further dispute resolution aid. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is linked to a similar disagreement in Talk:Rio Grande 268 as well, and at this point to resolve things civilly I have requested a Third Opinion for a neutral party to aid in arbitrating this issue. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DTParker1000's response to Xboxtravis7992’s comments:
 * -	RELEVANCE:
 * The title of the section in question is “Period of D&RGW 223’s Greatest Historical Significance.” Xboxtravis7992 has erased this entire section twice, and now wishes to eviscerate it again.  The other portion of the article includes 19 paragraphs, which go into rather minute detail on the engine’s mechanical history and movement history (much of which was added by Xboxtravis7992 himself).  He feels that all this information is worthwhile in a Wikipedia article, but that my 7 short paragraphs on the historical significance of the engine is “superfluous” and “fluff.”
 * I disagree.
 * By his logic, the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only include information on the ship’s mechanical and movement history, and nothing on its overall significance in history.
 * I feel that the opposite is true. The historical significance of the Titanic is the main reason why it is included in Wikipedia.  Its mechanical features and route taken are worthwhile also, but should not be allowed to force out a general discussion of the ship’s significance.
 * The same is true with D&RGW 223. As discussed in the text, it was built in 1881 and represents the most significant time period in D&RG history.  In the 1880s, the railroad was expanding rapidly, including hastily constructing a main line to connect with Ogden.  The years 1881 and 1882 saw the greatest expansion in the railroad’s history.
 * As a result of this rapid expansion, the railroad placed a massive order for engines (numbers 200-295). It was the largest order of three-foot-gauge engines ever made.  Baldwin Locomotive Works built most of the engines, but did not have the capacity for such a large order.  So, some of them were built by Grant Locomotive Works (engine numbers 200-227). D&RGW 223 is one of only three of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16) still in existence, and is the only one made by Grant.
 * The coming of the railroad transformed the region. Not only was transportation now much faster than before, but it was also much less expensive than hauling goods by wagon or on the back of a mule.  Freight rates fell to a fraction of what they had been. This opened up new markets that previously had been too distant to be profitable.  This dramatically increased opportunities for farming, mining and ranching in the region.
 * Engine 223 and her sister C-16 engines were the centerpiece of the railroad’s explosive growth period and the sea change that it brought to the area’s population and economy.
 * I think that is absolutely relevant. It is well worth a half dozen short paragraphs.
 * -	SOURCING:
 * Xboxtravis7992 attacks no less than five authors in his comment on sourcing. Yet, he doesn’t dispute the accuracy of ANY of the text…
 * What am I to conclude from that?
 * Does he have sources that contradict any of the text? If so, perhaps he should share them.
 * I was taught in school that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to attack him personally. I stand by the facts and logic presented in the text.  If someone disagrees with some of them, let's discuss it.
 * -	PHOTOS:
 * The section includes a handful of photos of C-16 engines from the time period being discussed (late 1800s). D&RG 223 was part of this huge order of C-16 engines built for the period of D&RG’s explosive expansion.  That is WHY the engine was significant.
 * That is why it is perfectly reasonable to include C-16 photos. Two of the photos include engines made by Baldwin.  Grant Locomotive Works made some of the engines in this historic order, but most of them were made by Baldwin.  Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to include a couple of photos that show this.
 * By the way, Xboxtravis7992, admits that the differences between the Baldwin and the Grant engines are few and relatively minor. Grant even got the blueprints for the engines from Baldwin.
 * -	CLAIMS:
 * Xboxtravis7992 questions that the city of Ogden, Utah is currently considering restoration options for the engine. That is exactly what it is doing (along with the preservation of the city’s Union Station).  Ogden has just elected a new mayor, who has a much more favorable attitude toward historical preservation than the previous mayor.  I have spoken and corresponded with senior city officials, as well as with Steve Jones, the president of the Golden Spike Chapter of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society (I am a proud member of the chapter.).  The city has also been in touch recently with John Bush, who wrote a study on restoration options for the engine.
 * Xboxtravis7992 complains that my text conflates the D&RG and the D&RGW as “one in the same” Rio Grande. In other words, he first objects to my “superfluous” discussion of the general historical significance of the D&RG 223 as being too long, and but then now he complains that I don’t include a discussion detailing the corporate relationship between the D&RG/RGW operations in Utah and Colorado.
 * Sheesh.
 * If anything is superfluous in the Wikipedia article on D&RGW 223, it is the lengthy, detailed discussion of the engine’s mechanical and movement history, not the brief section on the engine’s historical significance. Its historical significance is what makes the engine worthy of a Wikipedia article in the first place.
 * I would ask that neutral Wikipedia editors review the article, and judge for themselves whether or not they think that the brief section on the engine’s historical significance is relevant, accurate, and helpful to the reader.
 * I think they will agree with me that it is. DTParker1000 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not need to explain the entire history of Western Railroading to explain why 223 is historically significant. Just a sentence or two will do. You don't need to explain the relationship between the D&RG and RGW, you don't need to explain how the railroads effected the American west, nor do you need to give an entire history lesson on the D&RG/W, that's the job of the dedicated D&RGW page to do, not this one, go put that info in there.
 * In addition, you do not seem to be able to write very well. I can help reformat your words into more coherent few sentences if you REALLY need that information in this document.
 * This is a random preserved 2-8-0, comparing it to the most famous ship in the world is like comparing the original Super Mario Bros to some random Wii shovelware game from 2009, and trying to argue why you should write a 5 paragraph history on the development of said game. *You don't need that much words to being able to effectively convey why 223 is important*, just the Grant locomotive works stuff and the D&RG specific stuff will do, none of this fluff about general railroading.
 * After paragraph upon paragraph you've sent here, you still haven't successfully made a single point or counterpoint against Xboxtravis, neither have you even responded to any of my messages.
 * As a D&RGW fan, I am ashamed and embarrassed to be in the same fan club as this kind of thinking. CaptainComedy007 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish to respond with a neutral party arbitrating, a Third Opinion topic was set up by on the talk page for Rio Grande 268. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not here as part of any formal dispute resolution process but rather as a long term editor and administrator here to express my opinion as an editor, not wearing my administrator hat. For what it's worth, I am the primary author of another article about an individual locomotive, Sierra No. 3. Here are my thoughts about this dispute. A well-written Wikipedia article focuses on a specific, clearly defined topic and, with the exception of a few sentences here and there to establish context, the vast majority of the content of any article should focus on the specific topic. In this case, the topic is one specific locomotive. This article should not contain broader analysis of the importance of railroads in the 19th century or the settlement of the western US or how railroads impacted western economic development or any of that. Those topic areas all have a variety of articles devoted to them, and the beauty of a wiki is the ability of any reader to click on a wikilink to learn more. An article about a specific locomotive should not go astray from its purpose of describing that specific locomotive. I think the same way about photos. Frankly, I see it as bizarre to include photos of other similar locomotives. As for Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg, I am quite familiar with them and own a few of their books. Beebe was mostly the writer and Clegg was mostly the photographer. Their work on railroads was certainly interesting and opinionated but they were by no means serious scholars, and perhaps most important, it has been nearly 60 years since they were active. Recent reliable sources are preferred. As to the comparison to the cotton gin, that is not a good comparison in my opinion. The cotton gin is an invention and a technology and so the impact of that invention belongs in that article, just as impact belongs in the comparable article Rail transport. Rio Grande 223 is not an invention and not a technology, but rather a specific machine. So any discussion of its impact or historical significance must be limited to summarizing what reliable sources say about this specific locomotive and not railroads more broadly. One editor reports that they have had discussions about the future of this locomotive with city officials, and are trying to incorporate that information into the article. To be frank, that is an obvious violation of No original research, which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Personal conversations that an individual editor says they have had can never been included in a Wikipedia article. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic, no more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your insight. I feel you managed to succinctly capture my opinions on the subject very well and why I've been so vocal in this.
 * My personal suggestion would be to revert the article's text to this previous revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 but I would gladly accept analysis of the article to see if there are any edits that can better the article and improve it. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your insight. I feel you managed to succinctly capture my opinions on the subject very well and why I've been so vocal in this.
 * My personal suggestion would be to revert the article's text to this previous revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_223&oldid=1213584305 but I would gladly accept analysis of the article to see if there are any edits that can better the article and improve it. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Xboxtravis7992 and his repeated attacks on the historical significance of D&RG 223
Below is a recent Wikipedia Talk post of Xboxtravis7992 and my response to it. He has apparently since erased his post, but I think it is worth showing, since he has again raised the issue, and won't let it die. His actions indicate that he is dead-set against including information in the Wikipedia article on Rio Grande 223 regarding the engine's historical significance. He keeps dreaming up new-and-improved pretexts to eviscerate that section. What his real motives are are best known to himself. Below is his recent post, and my response:

Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am digging up this dead horse again, but 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) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MY RESPONSE:

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

1. I have no idea what he is talking about on his "Item #1." The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims. Citation #15 was to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman. Citation #33 was 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. 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) 17:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * DTParker1000, I have not deleted any of the talk page posts here or on other related pages. I checked as well on WikiProjectTrains and my posts remain there as well.
 * I have requested a third party opinion and do not wish to engage further with this debate until then. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, long time D&RGW fan here, long time fan of 223 as well
 * While I do agree that is good thing to have something about why D&RGW 223 is a historically significant engine, it does not require paragraph upon paragraph of incoherent and sloppy writing explaining the entire history of the D&RG/W (and history of railroading in general?) to understand why the engine is significant. We don't need these ramblings of text that is, to put it blunt, hard to read. If someone has made it to the wikipedia page of D&RGW 223, than I assume they are already well versed in general railroad history, and simply a link to the full D&RGW article (which is already there) will suffice if people really need to learn the history of the D&RGW. Focus on the specifics of why this engine is special, instead of this broad stuff.
 * If you REALLY need to keep your information on the "historical significance of D&RGW 223" in the article, I'm sure I and Xboxtravis7992 are willing to help fix the subpar writing and cut out the fluff, getting it down to just a couple good sentences, which is all that's needed for this occasion. If you wanna write a 10 page essay on why 223 is important, the wikipedia page is not the place to do it, that belongs on a personal blog or some other place, just anywhere but here. CaptainComedy007 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! I've been reading through the linked article, and I have not deleted any material, though I would agree that talking about Manifest Destiny and linking it back to this singular locomotive is unnecessary and surplus to requirements.
 * However, I would strongly recommend that some fine-toothed combs be run through the writing in the contested sections if they are to be left in the article. As an example, "Farmers could easily get their crops to market by river. In the West, no." While it is desirable to have Wikipedia articles written accessibly and not seem too "academic," the last fragmental sentence is too informal/conversational. There are other such examples present that are both too informal and read as purely personal opinion, such as "The railroads changed that." and "D&RGW 223 is one of those." The language could be streamlined for comprehension by the removal of these fragmentary sentences. Armagonstormhammer (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this is like giving credit to a single ant for the construction and orchestration of an entire colony and the colonies before it. For people really trying to hone in on said subject, its not impossible to convey how the locomotive could have very well played a minuscule roll in what was really the aftermath of Manifest Destiny's completion, but its still quite the stretch. 2) If this specific locomotive is so deserving of this history, why aren't any other members of the C-16 class or other D&RG consolidations given similar praise? Or any other any other narrow gauge locomotive? This is not destroying or harming the history of anything, this is nothing but a hindrance to the article and to those trying to learn about the actual history relevant to the 223. Joe Weigman (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Validity of source material
I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in a little over a decade at this point and lost access to my original account, but as one of the early editors of this article I would like raise awareness to the unreliability of some of the sources cited for the claims made in the recent additions. For credentials, I have a BA in Western U.S. History.

Gilbert Lathrop's books are folklore, and in many cases deviate widely from the verifiable historic record. I recommend that any claims drawn from his books be discarded.

Beebe & Clegg's books are notoriously unreliable for similar reasons. Their writing, while prolific and talented, is poorly researched and riddled with mistakes and myths. Similarly, I recommend that any claims drawn from their writing be discarded as well.

I would also counter specific claims made by DTParker:

1. "Prior to the railroad, most of the relatively arid West was largely uninhabited by human beings."

This is patently false, especially considering the large pre-Columbian and reduced but still substantial post-Columbian populations of Native American cultures. This phrase should be removed in its entirety as it subscribes to an old but now-debunked interpretation of American manifest destiny.

2. "Now farming became profitable. Now ranching became profitable. Now mining became profitable."

Farming, ranching and mining were all profitable before the railroads. The California Gold Rush if 1849 and the Pikes Peak Gold Rush of 1858 were both massively successful without the interference or help of any railroads. Ranching and farming were also profitable on the local market as well as in supplying these massive mining rushes with foodstuffs; in fact, Brigham Young admonished his followers in Utah to stop selling their wheat at high prices to the miners in California and Colorado and to reserve some for the local markets even if at lower prices to prevent starvation over the winter if the entire Utah supply was sold off to the mining fields. The only thing that the railroad changed was the ease and speed of transporting goods and raw materials which opened up new markets, but it didn't magically transform ranching, farming and mining from poverty to profitability.

I do partially agree with user xboxtravis7992 that the majority of the paragraphs expounding on an abridged analysis of Western United States development is irrelevant to the specific subject at hand, particularly the mention of eastern river and canal traffic, which is better suited to be described in an article about American railway development rather than a single surviving locomotive from a regional railroad company.

Tenminutesforrefreshment (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't agree that this item is "patently false."  The point I was attempting to make is that the arid West was far less inhabited (by any populations, Native or otherwise) before the arrival of the railroad than afterward.  The text does not make any reference to "Manifest Destiny," nor does it intend to imply it.  The reference is to the arid climate of the West and the amount of life that it supported before the railroads.  Perhaps the text can be made more clear, but the point is valid.  The dramatic population increase as a result of the coming of the railroad is not a matter of contention by historians (and it is supported by citations in the text).
 * 2. The point being made in this item is that the railroad brought not only faster transportation, but also significantly cheaper transportation.  This dramatically transformed the West.  Without the economical transportation provided by the railroad, the market for a farmer's product was very local.  Shipping by wagon was slow and expensive, and the shipping cost ate up the farmer's profit to the point where it was not worthwhile to look for markets at any significant distance.  With many goods, such as wheat (which grows in the arid West) or coal, for example, the product is relatively bulky in relation to its value.  So, even today, on some commodities, it is not unusual for half the price of the delivered product to be its shipping cost.  Thus, if freight rates go down substantially (such as with the introduction of the railroad), this can make farming, ranching and mining operations worthwhile in regions where that was previously not the case.  This occurred with the first transcontinental railroad, and with the other western railroads constructed thereafter.  This phenomenon is discussed at some length in the book "Economics of Transportation," by D. Philip Locklin, which is one of the sources cited in the text. DTParker1000 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does an article about a random Consolidation need a 10 paragraph essay (that would get a C- at best) on why the railroads were important? A sentence or two about specifically the D&RG's rapid expansion at the time 223 was built would suffice, that's why she was ordered in the first place, not all this bloat and fluff about general railroading.
 * Nobody cares! Nobody needs to know about general railroading in the west on a random 2-8-0's wikipedia page, go put your fluff on an actual page about general railroading. CaptainComedy007 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A few suggestions following the Third Opinion in the talk page for the Rio Grande 268 article. I did file a WP:DRN request, however since I am not sure if that will be a priority for them to resolve the disagreement or not. As such, I feel it is worth discussing a possible consensus for the article going forward.
 * Looking at the additions, if we were not to delete it outright perhaps we could discuss a potential revision that satisfies all parties.
 * These are my current problems with the article as it stands now:
 * Broad claims of general D&RG, steam locomotive and western history
 * Use of photos of locomotives that aren't 223, particularly of Baldwin built C-16's
 * Use of questionable sources such as Beebe & Clegg as outlined previously
 * Statements such as "period of most significance" that seem to be opinion based and not fact based conclusions
 * Speculation on the look of the restoration being considered by Ogden City
 * These are things I think with revision could stay in the article.
 * Explanation of how the future C-16's were ordered during a period of expansion on both the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway.
 * A look into how/why the D&RG ordered from Grant Locomotive Works in addition to their regular Baldwin orders (might need more research to clarify this actually)
 * A look into the type of services the then new Class 60N's would have been on when delivered new in the 1880's
 * I don't know if those are aspects the DRN would look to resolve if they want to look into resolving this, however I figure if we're all willing to calm the temperature in the room a bit now we can perhaps negotiate a cohesive vision for the article that would best serve everyone. I am welcome to other's listing their opinion on what they think needs to be changed on the article, and if they disagree with my assessment on what is worth removing from it.
 * (As an aside, I don't have a copy of the timetable yet but am hearing that another aspect of the C-16's with the claim they were the only locomotives allowed on the Gunnison Branch in the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad era is refuted by the weight limits listed on the railroad's timetables, but that is something I don't think is worth updating until we have a copy of that source on hand.) Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I found the tonnage ratings here, showing the Gunnison Branch could go up to a Class 72 (C-18) at least by 1924: https://www.drgw.net/gallery/v/EmployeeTTs/ETTGunnisonDiv103/TTGUC10308_24.png.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay continuing my ideas, I wrote a draft of it which you can see here on User:Xboxtravis7992/sandbox if people would like to comment on if this is too drastic of a revision or if they feel comfortable with the idea of it. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I don't have any responses yet, but in the name of being WP:BOLD, I'm going to move the sandbox draft I posted yesterday to the main page. If there are issues with that we can resume discussion here. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will reword the section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 to address the concerns expressed on this Talk page by Armagonstormhammer, Joe Weigman and Tenminutesforrefreshment.
 * However, I notice that Xboxtravis7992 has now erased the entire section on the significance of the engine, yet again. This marks the third or fourth time he has taken this extreme measure.
 * This is not good-faith, impartial editing. For reasons best known to himself, he has conducted an unremitting campaign to diminish the historic significance of the engine.
 * This is our fundamental disagreement - the historic significance of the engine.
 * This will have to be resolved by Wikipedia’s Dispute Resolution process. I look forward to that.
 * D&RG 223 is definitely historically significant. That is WHY it is worth including in Wikipedia.
 * -    It is a Class 60 (C-16) engine, which is the largest class of engines ever purchased by
 * the Denver & Rio Grande (engines 200-295).
 * -    D&RG 223 and her sister Class 60 (C-16) engines were the major part of the period of
 * explosive growth of the D&RG (1881-1882).
 * -    D&RG 223 and her sister Class 60 (C-16) engines represents the sea change in the
 * population and the economy of the region brought about by this massive expansion of the
 * railroad and massive purchase of Class 60 (C-16) engines.
 * -    D&RG 223 is one of only three surviving engines of this huge class (Class 60, C-16), and
 * the only one made by Grant Locomotive Works.
 * D&RG 223 was built in 1881. Railroad historian Joshua Bernhard stated flatly that 1881 was “the high point in the history of the Denver & Rio Grande.”   Railroad historian Robert LeMassena summed it up similarly, stating that 1881 was “the D&RG’s year of glory.”
 * D&RG 223 is the embodiment of this remarkable time period. Isn’t that worth including in the Wikipedia article about it?
 * Xboxtravis7992 doesn’t think so.
 * I do.
 * My responses to the latest round of specific arguments posited by Xboxtravis7992 are below:
 * -    He accuses me of making “broad claims of general D&RG, steam locomotive and western
 * history.” I notice that he doesn’t dispute any of them, though…
 * What are we to conclude from that?
 * If he has contrary information, perhaps at some point he will provide it, and we can
 * proceed from there.
 * -    He complains that some of the photos are of other Class 60 (C-16) engines besides just the
 * 223. Yes, that is true.  There are two reasons for this: (1) As stated above, the 223
 * represents this huge class of engines, and it is that class that was the most important in
 * D&RG history. (2) Good photos of the 223 in its historically significant years (the 1800s)
 * are scarce. If Xboxtravis7992 has some from that time period, I’d be delighted to see
 * them. Meanwhile, there is no harm in including a few photos of sister engines of the same
 * class.
 * -    Xboxtravis7992 complains about using Lucius Beebe and Charles Clegg’s books as citations.
 * However, he does not question the accuracy of the text itself.
 * That speaks volumes.
 * Most of what I wrote consists of well-known historic facts, and should not require ANY
 * citations. Nevertheless, this short, seven-paragraph section has no less than 38
 * citations. I would say that is more than adequate…
 * -    Xboxtravis7992 says that calling the section the “Period of D&RGW 223’s Greatest Historic
 * Significance” seems to be somehow not “a fact-based conclusion.”
 * Nonsense.
 * That’s what the whole section is about. And, the whole section is chock-full of facts.
 * That would be clear to any unbiased reader if Xboxtravis7992 would not keep erasing those
 * facts.
 * -    Xboxtravis7992 claims that what I wrote about the city of Ogden’s restoration options is
 * “speculation.”
 * This is also nonsense.
 * I have spoken and corresponded with Ogden officials. Has he?
 * As he has demonstrated in the long series of entries in this Talk page, Xboxtravis7992 has shown himself willing use whatever pretexts he can think of in his repeated efforts to eliminate the section on the historical significance of D&RG 223.
 * This is not good-faith, unbiased editing. This is not worthy of Wikipedia.
 * The engine IS historically significant. The short section I have written describing why this is the case is reasonable, accurate, and helpful to the reader.
 * I believe that impartial Wikipedia editors will agree. DTParker1000 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To counter:
 * I did attempt in my last edit to summarize the history of the D&RG at the point 223 was built as an attempt to try and incorporate DTParker1000's ideas of highlighting the historical importance of the railroad in 1881 with several construction projects. It was brief, but I consider a single paragraph setting the scene with links to relevant articles as sufficient compared to the longer intro. I still question though the idea that was the engine's sole claim to an "era of most importance." The text bloats the article with trivial information and causes a WP:Scope issue. Similarly the photos of other C-16's I believe is beyond the scope of the article.
 * We have already discussed Beebe & Clegg along with Lathrop and Athearn as being texts with issues with reliability. If the text doesn't follow WP:Reliable Sources standards, then we it puts the text itself into dispute; particularly the broad claims of the economic impact of the railroad (which tie into the prior scope issues).
 * Talking to Ogden City officials about the restoration and not using publicly citeable sources is WP:No Original Research issue. Yes maybe they told you information on how they consider the restoration can give, but without a public source it cannot be used in the page. If they state such in an official manner, be it a news article or press release we can consider changing the text then to reflect that.
 * DTParker1000's reversion of the article also removes the research on the Gunnison branch timetables, which show the oft-claimed "Only C-16's were allowed on the branch" is in error. Reverting the article removed citations from reliable sources which debunks a common false claim in 223's history.
 * The prior conflict resolution request was closed due to being improperly filed. I would point though to the third opinion on the Talk:Rio Grande 268 page though for suggestions on the article standards 223 should follow. If we can come to consensus I'd gladly continue talking here, however I would not be opposed to third opinions, conflict resolution processes, etc. if you wish to proceed that route. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside looking on JSTOR researching on Beebe & Clegg, I found historical articles which help explain my hesitancy to use Beebe & Clegg and their contemporary rail authors as valid sources. The first is a 1947 review of Mixed Train Daily where the author criticizes the prose of book and notes the authorial biases in the text. The second is a review on railroad history by Carl W. Condit in 1980 where he discusses Lucius Beebe's lack of technical knowledge, favoritism towards anecdotal evidence, and how contemporary authors imitated that style. For anyone with JSTOR access, I would recommend both articles for how they explain my hesitancy to continue blindly using Beebe & Clegg and their contemporaries as sources, and especially why I am concerned about this article imitating their prose. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This matter needs to go to some sort of Wikipedia conflict resolution process.
 * I feel that D&RGW 223 is very historically significant, and that it is perfectly appropriate that the Wikipedia article on this engine have a section explaining why it is historically significant.
 * Xboxtravis7992 disagrees.
 * That is our fundamental disagreement. That is what needs to be resolved.
 * I wrote the section on engine’s historic significance on Jan. 29, 2024. Xboxtravis7992 keeps erasing it.  He has done this 4 times now (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, Mar. 9, and Mar. 13).
 * Xboxtravis7992 has not been engaging in good-faith editing. He has used every imaginable pretext as an excuse to erase the entire section on the engine’s historic significance, over and over again.  This is inappropriate and does not constitute unbiased editing.
 * Only some sort of Wikipedia conflict resolution process can put an end to this unproductive back-and-forth.
 * My response to Xboxtravis7992’s latest comments is below:
 * ·       The engine IS historically significant.  That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.
 * D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”
 * How is that not significant? How is that not relevant to the article?
 * Xboxtravis7992 thinks that the section describing the engine’s historical significance (which
 * is only 6 brief paragraphs) is “fluff,” and “extraneous” and “bloat” and
 * “trivial.”
 * I disagree.
 * ·       Xboxtravis7992 repeats his claim that including citations from the published books of Beebe & Clegg, Lathrop or Athearn means that the text is automatically in “dispute” and therefore should be erased.
 * No, it doesn’t.
 * 1.    Perhaps Xboxtravis7992 hasn’t noticed, but every single sentence with a citation involving any of those authors also has other sources cited as well.  I urge other editors to examine the text and see for themselves.
 * 2.    Authors are human and make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that everything they write is automatically wrong.  I have no idea how many mistakes Lucius Beebe made in his long writing career, but he was a respected journalist for several major newspapers, and was also a syndicated columnist.  He wrote 35 books, and also owned his own newspaper.  He was inducted into the Nevada Writers Hall of Fame.  By the way, the Wikipedia article about him makes no mention of his writings being so unreliable that they should not be cited as a source of information…
 * 3.    Author Gilbert Lathrop’s book that I cited is largely a memoir of the experiences of his father and uncle who worked for the D&RG.  I suppose their memories weren’t perfect, but I see no reason why we should assume that everything in the book is automatically false (particularly when no evidence to the contrary is presented).
 * 4.    Author Robert G. Athearn was a distinguished professor of history at the University of Colorado.  His book on the D&RG was published by the Yale University Press.  Are books published by Yale too unreliable to be used as sources?  Xboxtravis7992 says that using this book as a source doesn’t follow WP:Reliable Sources standards.  I disagree.
 * 5.    The sentences involving the citations in question are stating well-accepted historic facts to begin with, and shouldn’t require any citations at all.  Nevertheless, each one of them has multiple citations.
 * 6.    Xboxtravis7992 doesn’t dispute the facts themselves or provide any contrary sources, whatsoever.  If I had written “The sky is blue” and cited Lucius Beebe as a source, I’m sure that Xboxtravis7992 would attack Beebe, but that doesn’t mean the text is wrong and should be reverted.
 * 7.    The section on the engine’s historical significance is only 6 paragraphs long, but it has 48 citations.  That seems adequate to me.
 * ·       In response to Xboxtravis7992’s comment, I have revised the wording of the sentence regarding Ogden’s restoration options that he questioned.  The sentence now simply states an uncontested fact that should not need any citations.  However, I have added three citations nevertheless.
 * ·       If Xboxtravis7992 will stop erasing the section on the engine’s historical significance, I have no objection to his making changes to the other sections of the article.
 * I feel that this engine is historically significant. I feel that the section in the article explaining why it is significant is appropriate, accurate and is helpful to the reader.
 * I look forward to a review by the Wikipedia conflict-resolution process. DTParker1000 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I submitted a Wikipedia Arbitration Request. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, so I hope this was the appropriate measure to take, and I hope I have done it correctly. DTParker1000 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 - No. It wasn't the appropriate measure, and will probably disappear in less than 24 hours.  Since this is the second good-faith but misguided effort at dispute resolution, I suggest that you or the other editor ask for advice at the Teahouse on how to resolve a dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement I am getting involved here. Stop edit-warring your preferred revision in, DTParker1000. You are the only person supporting the addition of massive amounts of off-topic and irrelevant text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book or a fansite, and you'd do well to remember that. Information being true is not sufficient grounds for its inclusion. Wikipedia is written in summary style and stay on topic. You are introducing information that, while it may well be true, is not relevant for an encyclopedia article on a specific locomotive. A museum exhibit might well include that information, but Wikipedia is not a museum, either. You will not be able to overrule the objections of numerous other editors simply by writing the most words on the talk page. If you are unable to work in a collaborative environment, please feel free to start your own blog where you can write as much as you want about Rio Grande 223. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate User:Trainsandotherthings latest edit, and reverted a recent edit to restore the page to their prior edit. User:DTParker1000, looking over this and the discussion in TEA does suggest an overall consensus from various editors in regards to the WP:Scope appropriate for this article. I have also raised concerns that your edits to the article are reflective of opinions and ideas you have raised on other websites and social media platforms, please remember to consider WP:NPOV guidelines and that this article is not the place to raise your specific opinions on the restoration and significance of 223. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 please be aware of the WP:3RR policy with your edits in the last 24 hours. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that including a brief section (six short paragraphs) on the historic significance of the engine constitutes a “massive amount of off-topic and irrelevant text.”
 * I would be delighted to work in a “collaborative environment.” However, labeling the historic significance section as being “extraneous,” “fluff” and “bloat,” and then erasing the entire section (7 times now) is less than collaborative.
 * Rather, it is simply a disagreement on whether or not there should be a section in the article on the engine’s historic significance. I think there should be.
 * By the way, there is no “overall consensus” that the section should be eliminated. Most of the comments on the Talk page have been regarding content and sources, rather than calling for discarding the entire section.
 * I have no idea how many editors/administrators there are who review the Talk pages, but there have been only half a dozen of them who have made any comments at all. Perhaps then, the “overall consensus” is that whatever problems editors/administrators might have seen with the historic significance section of this article were not serious enough in their minds to warrant making a comment.
 * I have modified the section several times in response to comments made on the Talk page, and I have also significantly shortened it (to four paragraphs).
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Talking to Ogden City officials about the restoration and not using publicly citeable sources is WP:No Original Research issue. Yes maybe they told you information on how they consider the restoration can give, but without a public source it cannot be used in the page. If they state such in an official manner, be it a news article or press release we can consider changing the text then to reflect that.
 * DTParker1000's reversion of the article also removes the research on the Gunnison branch timetables, which show the oft-claimed "Only C-16's were allowed on the branch" is in error. Reverting the article removed citations from reliable sources which debunks a common false claim in 223's history.
 * The prior conflict resolution request was closed due to being improperly filed. I would point though to the third opinion on the Talk:Rio Grande 268 page though for suggestions on the article standards 223 should follow. If we can come to consensus I'd gladly continue talking here, however I would not be opposed to third opinions, conflict resolution processes, etc. if you wish to proceed that route. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside looking on JSTOR researching on Beebe & Clegg, I found historical articles which help explain my hesitancy to use Beebe & Clegg and their contemporary rail authors as valid sources. The first is a 1947 review of Mixed Train Daily where the author criticizes the prose of book and notes the authorial biases in the text. The second is a review on railroad history by Carl W. Condit in 1980 where he discusses Lucius Beebe's lack of technical knowledge, favoritism towards anecdotal evidence, and how contemporary authors imitated that style. For anyone with JSTOR access, I would recommend both articles for how they explain my hesitancy to continue blindly using Beebe & Clegg and their contemporaries as sources, and especially why I am concerned about this article imitating their prose. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This matter needs to go to some sort of Wikipedia conflict resolution process.
 * I feel that D&RGW 223 is very historically significant, and that it is perfectly appropriate that the Wikipedia article on this engine have a section explaining why it is historically significant.
 * Xboxtravis7992 disagrees.
 * That is our fundamental disagreement. That is what needs to be resolved.
 * I wrote the section on engine’s historic significance on Jan. 29, 2024. Xboxtravis7992 keeps erasing it.  He has done this 4 times now (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, Mar. 9, and Mar. 13).
 * Xboxtravis7992 has not been engaging in good-faith editing. He has used every imaginable pretext as an excuse to erase the entire section on the engine’s historic significance, over and over again.  This is inappropriate and does not constitute unbiased editing.
 * Only some sort of Wikipedia conflict resolution process can put an end to this unproductive back-and-forth.
 * My response to Xboxtravis7992’s latest comments is below:
 * ·       The engine IS historically significant.  That’s why it deserves an article in Wikipedia.
 * D&RG 223 was built in 1881, and represents the most important period in D&RG history. This was the time of the D&RG’s explosive growth, and this dramatically transformed the region’s economy and dramatically increased its population. The railroad placed its largest order for locomotives ever (Class 60, C-16), and this was also the largest order for three-foot-gauge engines that Baldwin Locomotive Works had ever received. D&RG 223 was one of this huge class of engines (Class 60, C-16), and is one of only three of them still surviving. D&RG 223 is the embodiment of what author Robert Le Massena called the D&RG’s time of “glory.”
 * How is that not significant? How is that not relevant to the article?
 * Xboxtravis7992 thinks that the section describing the engine’s historical significance (which
 * is only 6 brief paragraphs) is “fluff,” and “extraneous” and “bloat” and
 * “trivial.”
 * I disagree.
 * ·       Xboxtravis7992 repeats his claim that including citations from the published books of Beebe & Clegg, Lathrop or Athearn means that the text is automatically in “dispute” and therefore should be erased.
 * No, it doesn’t.
 * 1.    Perhaps Xboxtravis7992 hasn’t noticed, but every single sentence with a citation involving any of those authors also has other sources cited as well.  I urge other editors to examine the text and see for themselves.
 * 2.    Authors are human and make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that everything they write is automatically wrong.  I have no idea how many mistakes Lucius Beebe made in his long writing career, but he was a respected journalist for several major newspapers, and was also a syndicated columnist.  He wrote 35 books, and also owned his own newspaper.  He was inducted into the Nevada Writers Hall of Fame.  By the way, the Wikipedia article about him makes no mention of his writings being so unreliable that they should not be cited as a source of information…
 * 3.    Author Gilbert Lathrop’s book that I cited is largely a memoir of the experiences of his father and uncle who worked for the D&RG.  I suppose their memories weren’t perfect, but I see no reason why we should assume that everything in the book is automatically false (particularly when no evidence to the contrary is presented).
 * 4.    Author Robert G. Athearn was a distinguished professor of history at the University of Colorado.  His book on the D&RG was published by the Yale University Press.  Are books published by Yale too unreliable to be used as sources?  Xboxtravis7992 says that using this book as a source doesn’t follow WP:Reliable Sources standards.  I disagree.
 * 5.    The sentences involving the citations in question are stating well-accepted historic facts to begin with, and shouldn’t require any citations at all.  Nevertheless, each one of them has multiple citations.
 * 6.    Xboxtravis7992 doesn’t dispute the facts themselves or provide any contrary sources, whatsoever.  If I had written “The sky is blue” and cited Lucius Beebe as a source, I’m sure that Xboxtravis7992 would attack Beebe, but that doesn’t mean the text is wrong and should be reverted.
 * 7.    The section on the engine’s historical significance is only 6 paragraphs long, but it has 48 citations.  That seems adequate to me.
 * ·       In response to Xboxtravis7992’s comment, I have revised the wording of the sentence regarding Ogden’s restoration options that he questioned.  The sentence now simply states an uncontested fact that should not need any citations.  However, I have added three citations nevertheless.
 * ·       If Xboxtravis7992 will stop erasing the section on the engine’s historical significance, I have no objection to his making changes to the other sections of the article.
 * I feel that this engine is historically significant. I feel that the section in the article explaining why it is significant is appropriate, accurate and is helpful to the reader.
 * I look forward to a review by the Wikipedia conflict-resolution process. DTParker1000 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I submitted a Wikipedia Arbitration Request. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, so I hope this was the appropriate measure to take, and I hope I have done it correctly. DTParker1000 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 - No. It wasn't the appropriate measure, and will probably disappear in less than 24 hours.  Since this is the second good-faith but misguided effort at dispute resolution, I suggest that you or the other editor ask for advice at the Teahouse on how to resolve a dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement I am getting involved here. Stop edit-warring your preferred revision in, DTParker1000. You are the only person supporting the addition of massive amounts of off-topic and irrelevant text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book or a fansite, and you'd do well to remember that. Information being true is not sufficient grounds for its inclusion. Wikipedia is written in summary style and stay on topic. You are introducing information that, while it may well be true, is not relevant for an encyclopedia article on a specific locomotive. A museum exhibit might well include that information, but Wikipedia is not a museum, either. You will not be able to overrule the objections of numerous other editors simply by writing the most words on the talk page. If you are unable to work in a collaborative environment, please feel free to start your own blog where you can write as much as you want about Rio Grande 223. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate User:Trainsandotherthings latest edit, and reverted a recent edit to restore the page to their prior edit. User:DTParker1000, looking over this and the discussion in TEA does suggest an overall consensus from various editors in regards to the WP:Scope appropriate for this article. I have also raised concerns that your edits to the article are reflective of opinions and ideas you have raised on other websites and social media platforms, please remember to consider WP:NPOV guidelines and that this article is not the place to raise your specific opinions on the restoration and significance of 223. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 please be aware of the WP:3RR policy with your edits in the last 24 hours. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that including a brief section (six short paragraphs) on the historic significance of the engine constitutes a “massive amount of off-topic and irrelevant text.”
 * I would be delighted to work in a “collaborative environment.” However, labeling the historic significance section as being “extraneous,” “fluff” and “bloat,” and then erasing the entire section (7 times now) is less than collaborative.
 * Rather, it is simply a disagreement on whether or not there should be a section in the article on the engine’s historic significance. I think there should be.
 * By the way, there is no “overall consensus” that the section should be eliminated. Most of the comments on the Talk page have been regarding content and sources, rather than calling for discarding the entire section.
 * I have no idea how many editors/administrators there are who review the Talk pages, but there have been only half a dozen of them who have made any comments at all. Perhaps then, the “overall consensus” is that whatever problems editors/administrators might have seen with the historic significance section of this article were not serious enough in their minds to warrant making a comment.
 * I have modified the section several times in response to comments made on the Talk page, and I have also significantly shortened it (to four paragraphs).
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5.    The sentences involving the citations in question are stating well-accepted historic facts to begin with, and shouldn’t require any citations at all.  Nevertheless, each one of them has multiple citations.
 * 6.    Xboxtravis7992 doesn’t dispute the facts themselves or provide any contrary sources, whatsoever.  If I had written “The sky is blue” and cited Lucius Beebe as a source, I’m sure that Xboxtravis7992 would attack Beebe, but that doesn’t mean the text is wrong and should be reverted.
 * 7.    The section on the engine’s historical significance is only 6 paragraphs long, but it has 48 citations.  That seems adequate to me.
 * ·       In response to Xboxtravis7992’s comment, I have revised the wording of the sentence regarding Ogden’s restoration options that he questioned.  The sentence now simply states an uncontested fact that should not need any citations.  However, I have added three citations nevertheless.
 * ·       If Xboxtravis7992 will stop erasing the section on the engine’s historical significance, I have no objection to his making changes to the other sections of the article.
 * I feel that this engine is historically significant. I feel that the section in the article explaining why it is significant is appropriate, accurate and is helpful to the reader.
 * I look forward to a review by the Wikipedia conflict-resolution process. DTParker1000 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I submitted a Wikipedia Arbitration Request. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, so I hope this was the appropriate measure to take, and I hope I have done it correctly. DTParker1000 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 - No. It wasn't the appropriate measure, and will probably disappear in less than 24 hours.  Since this is the second good-faith but misguided effort at dispute resolution, I suggest that you or the other editor ask for advice at the Teahouse on how to resolve a dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement I am getting involved here. Stop edit-warring your preferred revision in, DTParker1000. You are the only person supporting the addition of massive amounts of off-topic and irrelevant text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book or a fansite, and you'd do well to remember that. Information being true is not sufficient grounds for its inclusion. Wikipedia is written in summary style and stay on topic. You are introducing information that, while it may well be true, is not relevant for an encyclopedia article on a specific locomotive. A museum exhibit might well include that information, but Wikipedia is not a museum, either. You will not be able to overrule the objections of numerous other editors simply by writing the most words on the talk page. If you are unable to work in a collaborative environment, please feel free to start your own blog where you can write as much as you want about Rio Grande 223. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate User:Trainsandotherthings latest edit, and reverted a recent edit to restore the page to their prior edit. User:DTParker1000, looking over this and the discussion in TEA does suggest an overall consensus from various editors in regards to the WP:Scope appropriate for this article. I have also raised concerns that your edits to the article are reflective of opinions and ideas you have raised on other websites and social media platforms, please remember to consider WP:NPOV guidelines and that this article is not the place to raise your specific opinions on the restoration and significance of 223. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 please be aware of the WP:3RR policy with your edits in the last 24 hours. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that including a brief section (six short paragraphs) on the historic significance of the engine constitutes a “massive amount of off-topic and irrelevant text.”
 * I would be delighted to work in a “collaborative environment.” However, labeling the historic significance section as being “extraneous,” “fluff” and “bloat,” and then erasing the entire section (7 times now) is less than collaborative.
 * Rather, it is simply a disagreement on whether or not there should be a section in the article on the engine’s historic significance. I think there should be.
 * By the way, there is no “overall consensus” that the section should be eliminated. Most of the comments on the Talk page have been regarding content and sources, rather than calling for discarding the entire section.
 * I have no idea how many editors/administrators there are who review the Talk pages, but there have been only half a dozen of them who have made any comments at all. Perhaps then, the “overall consensus” is that whatever problems editors/administrators might have seen with the historic significance section of this article were not serious enough in their minds to warrant making a comment.
 * I have modified the section several times in response to comments made on the Talk page, and I have also significantly shortened it (to four paragraphs).
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:DTParker1000 please be aware of the WP:3RR policy with your edits in the last 24 hours. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that including a brief section (six short paragraphs) on the historic significance of the engine constitutes a “massive amount of off-topic and irrelevant text.”
 * I would be delighted to work in a “collaborative environment.” However, labeling the historic significance section as being “extraneous,” “fluff” and “bloat,” and then erasing the entire section (7 times now) is less than collaborative.
 * Rather, it is simply a disagreement on whether or not there should be a section in the article on the engine’s historic significance. I think there should be.
 * By the way, there is no “overall consensus” that the section should be eliminated. Most of the comments on the Talk page have been regarding content and sources, rather than calling for discarding the entire section.
 * I have no idea how many editors/administrators there are who review the Talk pages, but there have been only half a dozen of them who have made any comments at all. Perhaps then, the “overall consensus” is that whatever problems editors/administrators might have seen with the historic significance section of this article were not serious enough in their minds to warrant making a comment.
 * I have modified the section several times in response to comments made on the Talk page, and I have also significantly shortened it (to four paragraphs).
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how many editors/administrators there are who review the Talk pages, but there have been only half a dozen of them who have made any comments at all. Perhaps then, the “overall consensus” is that whatever problems editors/administrators might have seen with the historic significance section of this article were not serious enough in their minds to warrant making a comment.
 * I have modified the section several times in response to comments made on the Talk page, and I have also significantly shortened it (to four paragraphs).
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope that a dispassionate review by some sort of Wikipedia appeals process will look at the text of the historic significance section. I think that such a review will find it to be appropriate, accurate and helpful to the reader. DTParker1000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a supreme court to decide matters of content. That is decided among editors on the talk page of the article. You keep hoping that some higher power will overrule all who disagree with you, and you will find that none exists. You continue to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia. That means articles must stay on topic. Numerous explanations for why the content you are trying to add is not appropriate for the article, but you continue to stonewall. Our patience wears thin. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

, I am not any kind of "Wikipedia appeals process" (that doesn't really exist for content questions; the community at large is ultimately the "supreme court of Wikipedia" as that goes.) But I agree that what you wrote is bloated and inappropriate, and should not be in the article. Stop putting it back; there is clearly not consensus for it. I don't know whether the opinion of one more uninvolved editor will sway you or not, but there it is for what it's worth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)