Talk:Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway

Spokane Falls and Northern Railway

This was a regional line started in 1888. It ran from Spokane to Colville on the Columbia River and was part of the westward expansion of the rail network and growth of feed lines to the Northern Pacific Transcontinental line that transited Spokane.

It was built about the time that Washington attained statehood. Daniel Corbin was a businessman and land speculator who established lines in virgin territory then sold them. His timing was good as there were gold strikes in Ferry County and large silver strikes across the border in adjacent Canada. By 1891 Corbin extended his line to the smelter town of Northport.

Soon after, Corbin stretched his lines into Grand Forks, and then south again to Republic, Washington where there was a large gold strike. Corbin sold the line first to Northern Pacific, who then resold it to Great Northern in 1898. The Boundary country was the scene of an extensive copper mining boom with much of the activity focused on Phoenix and Grand Forks, Canada.

The GN built the line westward to Midway and Oroville in 1908. It connected to its sister line of the Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern.

Washington and Great Northern Railway was a twig of a line running in a U bend from Republic, Washington, up to Grand Forks where it joined the Spokane Falls and Northern. All were under the aegis of Great Northern, The Bedlington and Nelson Railway ran from Bonners Ferry Idaho to Kuskanook on the eastern shore of Kootenay Lake. Lake steamers then moved people to the silver mines of Sandon and the Lardeau areas. GN trains did a lively business hauling ice.

The lumber and mining industries emerging near the turn of the century in British Columbia created further opportunities for railway companies in North America. The Great Northern Railway was particularly concerned over competition from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and thus the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway was proposed as part of an expansion into Canada.

The basic thrust of the above is sound. However, the westward expansion, though envisioned by Corbin, occurred after he sold the railroad. Spokane Falls and Northern Railway (SF&N) provides a brief overview of the expansion and contraction. That being said, I regard the S&FN tag as more of an operational one during the earlier years. The westward expansion was a VV&E (BC side)/W&GN (WA side) combo. Consequently, I feel the historical story belongs more to VV&E than S&FN. Of course, my colleagues on the US side may differ.
As others have noted, the actual article needs a lot of work. W&GN is not mentioned. Although the CP/GN feud is relevant, the level of detail belongs elsewhere. About a decade ago, I recall reading about a proposal to search for the location of the uncompleted Railroad Pass tunnel. Do any of our readers know if anything came of this? If this tunnel had been built by GN, with CP running rights, it could have saved at least some of the KVR from later abandonment. Building any railway over the Coquihalla Pass made little sense. Unfortunately, our politicians in Ottawa and Victoria, whose grasp of railway economics was troubling, failed to rein in these railway barons for the common long-term good. Although GN built to Brookmere, have readers discovered any good articles on the GN's use of this section. I was always under the impression, once the KVR was built, freight and passengers were handed over to CP at Princeton. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Major article rewrite

Hello DMBanks1, you recently did a major rewrite of this article. The quality of the writing appears good, and a number of references were added. You removed the entire infobox, however, and whole sections previously included were removed. As this is a significant change to the article's tone and content, I would like to discuss it with you to get a feel for why you decided to transform the page in such a big way, and why you chose to make the changes you did. Thank you, Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Other contributors had previously inserted the multiple issues template as a header to the prior version, which indicated clear concerns regarding citations and tone. This prompted my April 3 comments and queries on the talk page, and later a complete redraft, because it was impossible to determine from where specifically the previous content was sourced. Various inaccuracies suggest suspect or misunderstood sources. Based on past experience, the plausible narrative likely included copyright infringements. The prior version had only two inline citations, neither of which were very illuminating. Of the four general references, I have previously read the middle two (plus related material), and largely used the second one to provide many of the inline citations. I wish I had access to the BC Studies database, since I have often observed it contains material of interest.

The infobox was removed because it was irrelevant to the VV&E specifically, but applied to GN generally (where it properly belongs). Possibly this query arose because of your unfamiliarity with North American railroads. I equally removed the non-VV&E related CP vs. GN conflicts, and kept VV&E conflict detail down to a bare minimum. To not slow down the narrative, I made many such VV&E related omissions, and may have been guilty of oversimplifying. No doubt, later edits will find effective ways to beef up some areas. Unlike the prior version, we should précis and be selective with contextual material. A contributor familiar with the CP vs. GN conflicts in BC may wish to create a new article on the topic, since an abundance of source material exists.

As for structure, I tend to break down content into manageable chunks, making it easier for the reader to grasp the whole story. There is no perfect way to present this material, since it covers both an expansive geographical area and time period. The current Kettle Valley Railway article suffers from similar deficiencies to the prior VV&E one. Perhaps a contributor might consider researching and rewriting that one. The KVR, VV&E, and other Border/Kootenay railway history is fascinating, and offers much scope for improving Wikipedia pages.

I realize that a rewrite unfortunately makes previous edits redundant, but when the article cannot be repaired in any other way, it is unavoidable. We have far too few contributors expanding articles and providing inline citations. I would encourage anyone with the appropriate skillset to help in this regard. DMBanks1 (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DMBanks1, thank you for such a thorough explanation of your motive and the work you did. Your level of dedication to the topic as well as your general professionalism is admirable, I wish more editors exhibited the same. You are correct in saying that I am not familiar with North American railroads, or any railroads, for that matter, and I will also admit that I am not motivated to review the sources you've used in the article, nor the accuracy of the content you added. My impression is that you know your stuff, so all I will do is check for grammatical accuracy, as that is where my forte lies. Again, thank you for the hard work :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi DMBanks1, it looks like you just undid every edit that I made to the article yesterday, without even providing a good reason. I'm a proofreader by trade, and I use CMOS, which is essentially what the Wikipedia MOS sticks to; I spent over half an hour going over everything you wrote and making sure there were no errors in it. Why did you feel the need to undo my changes? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Although it may not be unusual to receive a query from someone interested in the subject matter, when I read your initial query, it seemed quite strange that someone unfamiliar with the specific subject, the general topic, and the Wikipedia "tone or style warning" template, would have raised questions regarding content and tone. Furthermore, the tone of that query came across as condescending. Rather than react, I unwisely gave you the benefit of the doubt. Realizing that you were struggling upon a learning curve, I went to great lengths to extend the courtesy of rendering help. Not only did this reduce time available to expand further articles needing attention but also proved fruitless. Some may claim a knowledge of CMOS as a cudgel in the hope the recipient is totally defenceless. I assume your skillset relates to the version of British English used in the U.K. I would encourage you to apply it productively in that context. I cannot spend any more time on this matter, and ask that you refrain from further unhelpful dialogue. I wish you success in your endeavours. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

DMBanks1, I'm shocked and taken aback by this complete reversal of your attitude, from being friendly and professional one day, to suddenly accusing me of all kinds of things that I haven't done. Regardless, I will not continue this discussion, as you prefer. I merely want to mention that I'm not using British English, as you suggested, and I will in fact correct any grammatical errors that you leave in the article. You cannot simply undo another editor's work because it doesn't appeal to you, without providing an appropriate justification. Please do not revert my edits; if you object to anything I change, it should be discussed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: The facts speak for themselves. The absence of any attempt at apology is revealing, but not surprising based on your demeaning approach. Most of us in the Wikipedia community willingly acknowledge we are on a learning curve. You seem to confuse grammatical errors with any manner of expression except your own. We will abandon you to your redundant activity as long as the deficiencies are of minimal significance. Any credible contributor considers edit wars, which you state you intend to pursue and have been previously accused of by others is not only contrary to Wikipedia guidelines but totally pointless. If you believe any contributors are going to discuss changes with you before remedying your efforts, I can assure you they will not be wasting their time. Your statement regarding not using British English does in fact appear correct. The distinctive way you express yourself seems quite un-British and suggests perhaps the Indian subcontinent.DMBanks1 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)