Talk:Spokane and British Columbia Railway

Was this railroad an airline?
"Hot Air Line" may refer to the term "air-line railroad" as well as "hot air". "Air line" meant a railroad that went from A to B via the shortest route, a line drawn through the air, such as the Seaboard Air Line Railroad. The term stands out now that airplanes exist, but it was used as far back as the 1850s. I'm not sure if there's anything in the sources to support it, but it seems likely that people may have made the association, particularly because a railroad calling itself an "air line" seems to have been viewed as grandiose in itself. Roches (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, as noted in the references this was very much "hot air" in the terms of grandiose claims of the financial backers and what the railroads goals were.-- Kev min  § 17:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing
Key information regarding Canadian Pacific Railway involvement is missing or inaccurate. The broader conflict with Great Northern (namely W&GN and VV&E subsidiaries), or how this impacted inevitable failure, is not examined. To gain a better understanding of the history in context, read Chapter Eleven JIM HILL VS THE HOT AIR LINE 1900 – 1908 of https://klopp-family.com/colorful-history/bill-laux-and-his-works/the-mining-railroads/. Using such content, and relevant narrative from the existing article, a rewrite should double the substance, and may reduce the word count. DMBanks1 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC) More generally, in doing a reasonably comprehensive update, it is necessary to first compile as much information as possible from multiple sources. The Klopp-type articles are excellent for obtaining the big picture. To date, I have not used Klopp for a citation, because I have found more conventional sources that cover the same content. Précis all the source information. This can be challenging, but as with any task, this skill will improve with experience. Devise a structure which corresponds with that information, and breaks it down into more manageable chunks. Insert the information under those headings. Determine if further research is required for weaker sections. It takes a number of redrafts to eliminate redundant narrative. Free online material exists to help us enhance our writing skills. We should all seek personal improvement. Our aim in Wikipedia is informative content, inline citations, readability and accuracy. I wish you every success. DMBanks1 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Since we are really struggling here, let me first try another tack. In the informative http://kalmakov.com/historical/grand%20forks%20railways.html, quoting from the section titled The Great Northern (VV&E) versus the Hot Air Line ... "The bewildering array of Canadian and American charters lumped together under the term "Hot Air Line" would likely defy comprehension for many casual readers and some clarity from experts may first be in order. Confusion ... surrounding the Kettle Valley Lines and the GF&KR, KRVR and the KVR." Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article manages to make the confusing even more confusing. He then goes on to quote the renowned BC railway author Robert D. Turner, followed by the section titled Bill Laux's "Steep and Crooked" manuscript ... (ie. The Klopp article I have pointed out a few times). I believe someone recognized by the B.C. Historical Association might know more on the subject than most of us, but I could be wrong. Your earlier claim, that sources that discuss this minute regional line do not seem to exist, appears to indicate a reluctance to look for them, but instead focus on sources that deal with the most trivial level of detail. To just scratch the surface, I was so troubled by the reliability of the Wikipedia page, I read the newspaper article for citation #2. Perhaps you would explain how all the information preceding those sections is supported by this newspaper account. DMBanks1 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest going about updating the article? Keeping in mind Canadian Pacific Railway did not have any involvement with the formation of the Republic and Kettle Valley Railway, as noted in the article, and one should not confuse this short lived railway with the Kettle Valley railway which is related to CP.  Does klopp-family.com meet wp:sourcing guidelines, I am leery of it as it does not give any references and likely would fall under WP:blog? Are you willing to take on the rewrite?-- Kev  min  § 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your interest in BC railway history is admirable and your valuable work to date appreciated. We have far too few contributors expanding articles. We find the more we read, that this history was molded by the interplay between a combination of CP, GN, CNo, GTP and later CN. Some minor players have existed. We must never assume the authors of all respected literature fully grasp the implications of these relationships. For this article, an appreciation of the CP/GN interplay is important. Any biography of at least 200 pages from a local library on James Jerome Hill is a good place to start. This subject matter was first brought to my attention about 30 years ago, and I was pleasantly surprised by the way the Klopp article effectively distills the essence.
 * You note that you do not have time to take on this, but you must consider that I also do not have time to do the suggested process that you are putting forward. I researched the Spokane and British Columbia and the Republic and Kettle Valley Railways while I was forming the article, and used the references that specifically discussed the RR.  Yes there are larger regional factors for much of it, BUT sources that discuss this minute regional line do not seem to exist.  I was not able to find ANY specific coverage in reliable sources for the litigation between it and the GN other then the 1911 Supreme court verdict. Having been editing on WP for over 10 years I have a pretty good feeling for my article writing style, thank you all the same.-- Kev  min  § 19:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have misinterpreted my intent, and I have unwittingly caused you offence. Without a general familiarity with the fascinating history of border railway lines, I realize it would have been challenging to effectively compile the article. As previously mentioned, I admire all the hard work you put in. I merely raised the Hill biography because I thought you might be interested. However, I initially pointed to the Klopp article to provide a quick overview, so that you would realize there is a lot more going on with this railway than you first believed. I mentioned the online writing material available because I found it helped me dramatically. I only wished I had known about these principles during my professional career. I hope I have been able to put them to some good use in Wikipedia, but there again, it is an ongoing learning experience. DMBanks1 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are apparently unaware that our Wikipedia policy is that it is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid. Since the page still fails to present a clear concise narrative regarding the creation, operation and failure of the railway, I will replace the tag with the more encompassing "multiple issues" one, since that better describes the page.

Again, personal websites are NOT considered reliable sourcing, kalmakov and Koppfamily both are personal sites that provide no information as to the veracity of the information they present. WHAT reliable sources will YOU provide to improve this page? I HAVE been looking for sources since I started this article as a subsection of the Republic, Washington article in January.-- Kev min  § 00:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please make at least a superficial attempt to honestly answer the above concerns about breaching Wikipedia protocols, and the integrity, relevance, and readability of the page narrative, instead of sidestepping the issues. If you have doubts about what has been written by those who have evidently undertaken comprehensive research, dig deeper to determine if what they are saying is reliable or not. We do not discover most of the nuggets on the surface. When researching pages, I have found such material provides an excellent starting point. We cannot expect all the answers to be handed to us on a platter, to then be regurgitated. Further research verifies or rejects any dubious content. Are you dismissing Robert D. Turner's many books as unreliable? DMBanks1 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)