Talk:Steamtown National Historic Site

message: 
The infobox could possibly be useful in editing the article. Steamtown is a National Historic Site, and hence is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  It is not a National Historic Landmark.  I hoped to provide the NRHP registration documents, comprised of a PDF text file and a PDF photos file, but those are not available on-line at the National Park Service for this site, unlike for most NHLs and I think for most NHS sites.  The National Register document search site does yield the name Steamtown, of course, but it leads to no documents.  To obtain them, one must make a request to the National Register of Historic Places Reference Team (nr_reference at NPS.gov) for hard copies.  Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pennsylvania ARCH site has it - the NRHP nomination form (PDF) is here I will try to add info to this as I have time, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP and NPS sources 

message: The language in the Criticisms section must be toned down.  Words like "deplorable" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Closer to the subject it must be understood that restoration takes a lot of money, and many of the pieces dropped off at Steamtown would have been scrapped for need of storage anyway. --KJRehberg (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favor of scrapping the whole section unless sources can be added and the language toned down.  I don't doubt that legitimate criticism exists, but it's certainly not represented in this section. Tomdobb (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the language is not WP:NPOV, but reliable sources for at least the pork barrell and collection quality criticisms are fairly easy to find. See this New York Times piece which talks of McDade's role and says "But a number of historians and museum curators around the nation call Steamtown a second-rate collection of trains on a third-rate site." My guess is the lack of restoration issue also has RS that can be cited. I started this article and it was one of my first so I did not use inline citations - sorry. I recall finding the criticisms on the web, but will need to look for the lack of repair stuff. The worst POV language is NOT mine, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a rebuttal of the criticism by then Governor Scranton in a letter to the NYT. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's a late 2008 AP article on visitor numbers being substantially down, repairs being delayed as a result of stagnant budgets, and calls to privatize the operations. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is an official NPS Steamtown response on why they have not repaired a particular locomotive that mentions tight budgets and only being able to maintain what already works: "Our shop force is stretched tight to maintain and perform class repairs to the present power “in-service”." Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 14:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a piece from the Scranton Times (the AP article linked above seems to be a short version of the same thing). It quotes two critics extensively, at least one of whom (Pevsner) tried to hijack this article some time ago. For a rebuttal to some of the arguments, see this piece which may not be a RS (and does use my photo, with attribution). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No good reason except that I was busy with other things. I am not really a train person, alhtough I started this article a long time ago. I am very glad to see your work on it - thanks. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

text: No offense was meant or intended to you or to any of the staff or volunteers. The NPS is chronically underfunded and if there is a villain in this story, it is the lack of money for the work needed at all of the parks. Finally, let me point out that this is an international encyclopedia and most of the volunteers who conrtribute here do not necessarily live anywhere near enough to help there. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I have been thinking about this article and the sources available. I think it would make more sense to have the history section divided into three parts: history of the site (which the NRHP documents would help with), history of the collection (looking at Steamtown USA) and then History of the current Steamtown NHS. The current criticisms section would disappear, but the pork barrel allegations could go into the early part of the NHS history, the collection criticisms could be discussed in both the history of the collection and the early NHS history, and the information on attendance and the lack of restoration could go into the late (current) part of the NHS history, or perhaps even into an Operation section. I think this could be a GA with some work, although I have several other projects in line ahead of this right now. The other sections would probably be about the same, though some of the collection info could go into the history of the collection. How does this idea sound? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization idea 

message: The locomotive list is fine, but how about a further identification by builder and type?
ALSO, contributors on this page are using insider's knowledge. Article additions should be following the Wikipedia rule of acceptable verifiability, this requires that all references can be traced back to a reliable source. trezjr (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locomotive list 

message: After reading about Steamtown, U.S.A. and Steamtown National Historic Site, both articles sounds like the same Steamtown. Its follows as that Steamtown U.S.A. stopped in 1983 and reopened in 1986 in Scranton after moving from Vermont and in the same year Congress voted to transform it into an historic site which happened in 1995. Than Congress did research in 87 and 88 while Steamtown was an still independent tourism site. Than Steamtown went bankrupt in 1990 and after the research was completed, the research was used as a Scope of Collections Statement for Steamtown which was published in 91 as the Steamtown Special History Study a year after Steamtown went bankrupt. And then 95 the government aquired Steamtown U.S.A. and reopened it as Steamtown National Historic Site so I guess you can it was renamed from Steamtown, U.S.A. to Steamtown National Historic Site while keeping the name Steamtown.173.61.77.216 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of [[Steamtown, U.S.A.]] into Steamtown National Historic Site.