Talk:Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad

Reversion of recent changes

2009/ Nov The innacurate and incomplete information posted by Pitamakan have now mostly been corrected. Utah History was right in his/her research

THE NEW CHANGES ARE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utah History (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this note to explain why I've reverted a series of recent edits to this article.

Pitamakan 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1. In the future, please adhere to Wikipedia formatting conventions when adding material to a talk page, and sign your edits. Your last changes are placed to make it appear to the casual reader that I wrote them, and that's inappropriate. Note also that typing in all caps is considered impolite. HUBRIS DOES NOT MAKE ONE RIGHT. BEING STUBBORN IS CONSIDERED FOOLISH. IN THE FUTURE WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INTERPRET HISTORY, WRITERS SHOULD DO THEIR HOMEWORK.

2. You should review Wikipedia's policy on sources -- start with WP:PSTS. Note that Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, relying on secondary sources for its material. Primary research is not allowed, but "regurgitating" well-regarded secondary sources is exactly what Wikipedia is intended to do. YOUR INTERPRETATION. VERY SILLY. WIKPEDIA STATE: GUIDELINES ARE NOT SET IN STONE. WRITERS SHOULD USE COMMON SENSE.

3. Also review Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, such as WP:NPOV -- some of your edits appear to violate that policy. Wikipedia recommends that individuals not write about themselves, their families, or their businesses, because of the inherent bias that results. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE STUPID STATEMENT. I believe writing about one's ancestors falls into that category, as well.THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE STUPID STATEMENT. WRITING ABOUT ONES ANCESTORS PROVIDES FIRST HAND KNOWLEGE, NOT HEARSAY. WHEN WRITING IN THIS FORUM, ONE SHOULD FIRST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT... NOT REGURGITATE OTHER WRITERS WORDS OR AS HEMPHILL STATES, DO YOUR RESEARCH.

2009 Nov. Turns out Malmquist is a better source. He had papers from John F. Fitzpatrick... Senator Kearns personal secretary. Turns out also that Senator Kearns was an incorporator and worked long and hard nationally to insure this railroad to its completion. And... Myrick is a highly respected independent railroad historian specializing in railroads in Nevada and Utah. The Signor book is incomplete as far as the origins of the SP,LA & SL.

4. It seems wildly inconsistent that you would criticize Signor's book because he received cooperation from the Union Pacific, while at the same time praising Malmquist's Tribune book. MALMQUIST WAS INDEPENDENT. CONSPICUOUSLY LEAVING OUT HISTORICAL SOURCES, SL TRIBUNE, MYRICK OR HEMPHILL MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IMMATURE BEHAVURE. WIKPEDIA SUGGESTS THAT CONTRIBUTORS SHOULDN'T GET THEIR NOSES OUT OF JOINT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG AND HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.

Pitamakan 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Utah History October 11, 2007

ACCURATE INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDED

2009 Nov. Actually the stations built after name change had SALT LAKE ROUTE names on the station or the city.

1. The railroad is best-known as the SP,LA&SL, not the LA&SL. Published secondary sources generally use the LA&SL name; it was the most recent name used by the corporation; and it was the name the corporation used the longest (1916 to 1937). Wikipedia naming conventions therefore indicate that the LA&SL name be used. Introducing the earlier acronym makes the article more confusing and also adds inaccuracies -- for example, the depots described in the article were constructed after the LA&SL name was adopted. NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE INTRODUCING THE EARLIER NAME IS HISTORICAL ACCURATE. THERE IS LITTLE KNOWN ABOUT THE ACTUAL HISTORY OF THIS RAILROAD 1901-1916. A NEW DOCUMENTARY AND COMPANION BOOK ARE SOON TO BE RELEASED TO CORRECT EARLIER OMMISSIONS. MYRICKS BOOKS, HISTORY OF NEVADA RAILROADS VOL I & II ARE BETTER EXAMPLES OF MORE PROFESSIONAL REASEARCH & REFERENCE. MARK HEMPHILL'S WELL DONE CONTEMPORARY BOOK UNION PACIFICS SALT LAKE ROUTE EMPASISES THIS POINT AT THE END OF HIS BOOK WHEN HE WRITES THE LA & SL HAS ATTRACTED RELATIVELY LITTLE ATTENTION FROM HISTORIANS... FUTURE HISTORIANS SOULD DO WELL TO EMULATE MYRICK'S DESCRIPTIVE, READABLE AND THOROUGHLY-RESEARCHED WORKS. HE LISTS OTHER READING RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WOULD BENEFIT SOMEONE TRYING TO WRITE ACCURATELY IN THIS FORUM. OTHERWISE, THESE FORUMS END UP WITH OTHER WRITERS REGURGITATED HISTORY REGURGITATED FROM A PREVIOUS WRITER.

2. In general, the other textual changes introduced either conflict with published secondary histories, or are not supported by them. For example, Signor's book -- generally considered the best secondary study of the railroad -- barely mentions Thomas Kearns at all, including him only as part of a list of initial directors. SIGNOR'S BOOK, WHILE SIGNOR'S BOOK A GOOD BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY HAS SEVERAL OMISSIONS AND INCOMPLETE FACTS. IT IS ALSO WRITTEN WITH UP'S COOPERATION AND THEIR REVISIONISTS HISTORY. IT IS OUTDATED GIVEN CURRENT RELEASED INFORMATION. THOMAS KEARNS IS MENTIONED PROMINENTLY DURING THIS TIME PERIOD IN THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, NEW YORK TIMES, LESLIE'S, HARPERS AND SEVERAL OTHER WESTERN NEWSPAPERS IN REGARDS TO THIS IMPORTANT RAILROAD. DUE DILIGENCE AND PROPER RESEARCH IS HELPFUL WHEN WRITING IN A FORUM SUCH AS THIS.

3. Wikipedia references need to be published sources, and ideally secondary ones. Simply listing a corporate name as a reference is inappropriate, and suggests spamming. ERASING REFERENCES SUCH AS MALMQUISTS BOOK AND MARROOTT LIBRARY ARCHIVES FROM THE REFERENCES SECTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE RIGHT... JUST STUBBORN. IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WRITER DOES NOT LIKE TO BE CORRECTED.

WE ARE DEDICATED TO ACCURATE HISTORICAL DETAIL AND HAVE ASSIGNED AN INTERN TO CORRECT THIS PAGE EVERY DAY. 67.182.210.129 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article locked to allow time to resolve differences

Vegaswikian seems biased in his/her assumptions. It turns out that Utah History, who may be stubborn, know his/her facts and was right all along. Vegaswikian should respect this in the long run since there is too much bogus information on Wiki

I reverted to a version without the duplication of material. I also locked the article for 48 hours to allow time here to resolve differences. Vegaswikian 05:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salt Lake Route.jpg

Image:Salt Lake Route.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale has been added. Pitamakan 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)