Talk:Eurasian Land Bridge

message: I've expanded the article and removed the redirect.  I did not use any sources linked to the LaRouche organization.  A few areas of the topic need additional detail, but I was unable to find further information in English sources:
* Which railway in Kazakhstan is China using to connect through to Europe?
* Has Kazakhstan started the narrow gauge railroad project?
* What's the status of the Bering Strait tunnel?
* What's the status of the Korean peninsula rail link?
* How much trans-continental freight and passengers are actually using the Trans-Siberian or Chinese routes each year to go from the Pacific to western Europe? Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The much older "2004 redirect" comments are strange because there are clearly numerous articles on the European Land Bridge and New Silk Road independent of and even predating LaRouche. It was utilized in the 1940s by the British to refer to connections between the Middle East and the Balkans. MajorStovall (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 expansion

message: Hello. I did a search on Google. There are 34,500 hits for "Eurasian Land Bridge" and 13 million for "New Silk Road." Shouldn't the title of this article be "New Silk Road"? MajorStovall (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about the name but I think you should check your search terms. I suspect you searched for New Silk Road, not "New Silk Road". I get 153,000 and 567,000 for the two terms you mention. 80.65.247.36 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I get 155,000 for ELB in quotes and 5.08 million for NSR in quotes. MajorStovall (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. I'm googling from the UK but using google.com. I consistently get 567,000 for "new silk road". Very peculiar. Using google.co.uk (but searching all web, not just uk sites) it drops to 176,000. while "Eurasian land bridge" gets the same as google.com at 153,000. 80.65.247.36 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is odd. I'm googling from the U.S. MajorStovall (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title question

message: 1. WP:V:
"Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."
2. WP:NPOV:
"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority ... Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views ... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject ... (and quoting Jimbo): If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
3. LaRouche 1:
*"Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."
*"Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." 
4. LaRouche 2:
" Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouchefor up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." (my bold)
5. Cla68/SV:
[T]he parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin ... provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary." 
Regarding this last point, Cla68 was well aware that this was a contentious article that I had previously been involved in, yet arrived here to strike up the opposite position to me, after extensive discussion with a banned user on Wikipedia Review. There could hardly be a clearer violation of the ArbCom ruling. This was done after Cla was asked by me recently to respect the ArbCom ruling,  something I had to request because he was regularly commenting on me again, and he seemed to agree to do that. SlimVirgin 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no talk page consensus here, and anyway no talk-page consensus can overrule the content policies. What is on show here is a fundamental lack of understanding of the policies. Also, please explain why you coming to this article—which you know is a controversial one that I was involved in earlier—is not a violation of the ArbCom ruling that says we're to try to avoid contentious interaction with one another. SlimVirgin 05:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant policies and ArbCom rulings

message: As the two English-language sources being used for this are not linked to, can you please paste here the exact text that refers to LaRouche's involvement with the bridge? They are Joe Sciacca. "Race for 9th District; As races go, Joe would've loved this one," Boston Herald, September 10, 2001 and The Virginian-Pilot. "Three Candidates Face Off In Bid For Incumbent Warner's Senate Seat; All Virginia Voters Will Decide Who Among The Candidates Will Begin Serving A Six-Year Term In January,"  November 3, 2002.
Also please address my point about adding tiny-minority sources per UNDUE. Do you think we should add to the article about the Earth that the Flat Earth Society says X, if we can find a reliable source who reports that the Flat Earth Society says it is flat? Should we add to the article on Autism that Scientologists say there is no such thing, if we can find a reliable source who reports that Scientologists say this?
If not, what is the difference here? SlimVirgin 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source request

message: The RfC question is: Should this article include that the LaRouche movement supports this project if a reliable source says they do, or would that be a violation of UNDUE? 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are more sources which mention LaRouche than mention the United Nations, which is why I put the information on LaRouche first.  I used several search terms when looking for sources for this article including "Eurasian Land Bridge" and "Bering Strait Crossing", both of which are related to the topic.  These terms produced several hits mentioning LaRouche.  I used about 30 articles as sources for this topic.  Three of them mentioned LaRouche, or 10%.  The amount of text explaining the LaRouche connection is around 10%. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: A reposting of a comment made prior to this RfC which never received a response.
There's no question that the LaRouche movement has promoted a Eurasian Land Bridge and Bering Strait tunnel or bridge. The question for this page is whether their support is significant. A list of common platform items is at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. In WP articles on other signature issues, like the gold standard or colonization of Mars, we don't have any mention of the movement's advocacy. Is LaRouche mentioned in any sources about the ELB that aren't about or by him?   Will Beback  talk   10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *I've just noticed that the Arab source doesn't even connect LaRouche to the land bridge. All it says is: "In keeping with the approach represented by this heritage, the government invited the U.S. to adopt a foreign policy based on economic cooperation with countries in the developing world, by actively participating in building the Eurasian land bridge and infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, irrigation channels and the transfer of energy to link Africa and Asia and Europe through the Middle East ..."  SlimVirgin 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *To reply to Cirt's point above, no English-language sources devote any significant discussion, or any discussion at all really, to LaRouche's claimed involvement in this. He has been writing in his own publications for years that he is somehow pivotal to the project, in ways that no one can understand, and no reliable source has picked up on it. He similarly claimed to be behind Star Wars, as I recall. SlimVirgin 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *This assertion is untrue.  I found two English-language, reliable sources which mention that the Eurasian Land Bridge is connected to the LaRouche movement.  Also, what's wrong with using non-English sources?  If you look at the sources I used, most of them are from non-North American sources, basically because the object of this topic is outside of North America and the Commonwealth.  Even the two Newsweek sources I used are from the international edition. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have found no source about the land bridge that mentions LaRouche. Only two sources about LaRouche that mention the land bridge. Can you not see the difference? SlimVirgin 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not true.  The Virginian-Pilot source clearly states that development of international, linked rail transport routes throughout North America, Asia, and Europe is a key element in the LaRouche platform.  The Boston Globe article mentions a LaRouche candidate attending a political debate in Massachusettes and speaking about the Eurasian Land Bridge.  The Egyptian newspaper article confirms from the reporter's interview with LaRouche that the Land Bridge is an important element in LaRouche's political agenda.  The sources are solid. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cla, you keep missing the point here, and I'm going to assume good faith and accept that this is a genuine misunderstanding. The sources you are citing are writing about LaRouche and his claims. They are not writing about the land bridge. I can supply you with multiple, high-quality sources (BBC etc) that show LaRouche says the Queen is a drug pusher, and LaRouche claims the royal family is planning to assassinate him. Are you arguing we should use those sources to add LaRouche's claims to those articles? SlimVirgin 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about that. See the Federal Reserve analogy in my solicited comments. Having read WP:UNDUE and the other comments, I can't see how LaRouche can be mentioned at all. MajorStovall (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me show my work, at least.  A search of "Federal Reserve" returns 35,463 books on Google Books.  "Eurasian Land Bridge" returns 175.  "Lyndon LaRouche" returns 766 books, while "Ron Paul" returns 1049.  Thus, one informal survey of Google Books suggests that the "Federal Reserve" is 202.65 times more notable than the "Eurasian Land Bridge," while "Ron Paul" is only 1.37 times more notable than "Lyndon LaRouche."  I haven't thought of any good analogies, but the point is that unless there is other more notable material that should go in a decent-sized article, then any material covered by reliable sources is generally fair game.  I'm guessing the real concern is people don't want LaRouche supporters to be able to point to an article like this on Wikipedia and say "Look, this was our initiative, it says right there."  Or, they don't want people funneled to articles on LaRouche from something that looks like a real policy concept. If we word this correctly, something like I suggest above or Will Beback suggests below, I don't think those need to be a concern.  It strikes me as more strange not to mention it at all, where people will either be confused about whether they're in the right place, or call it a shut-out.  Serving the encyclopedic purpose in my view is to cover it briefly as we deem appropriate, based on the reliable sources available. Mackan79 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: LaRouche movement 

message: ====Comments by SlimVirgin====
*Violation of UNDUE. UNDUE, part of the NPOV policy, exists precisely to prevent the views of tiny minorities being added throughout the encyclopaedia. We do not add to Earth that the Flat Earth Society believes it is flat, or to Autism that Scientologists believe it doesn't exist, even if reliable sources can be found that tell us those groups hold those views. We may add that material to articles about those groups, but not to articles about the topics they comment on, because their views on those topics are tiny-minority ones. Similarly, we do not add to Eurasian Land Bridge that Lyndon LaRouche, the head of a political cult, claims to be involved in it, or is supportive of it, just as we do not add to Elizabeth II that he once accused her of being a drug pusher, even though multiple reliable sources have reported the latter, including the BBC. This is one of the most fundamental principles of NPOV. SlimVirgin 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are more sources which mention LaRouche than mention the United Nations, which is why I put the information on LaRouche first.  I used several search terms when looking for sources for this article including "Eurasian Land Bridge" and "Bering Strait Crossing", both of which are related to the topic.  These terms produced several hits mentioning LaRouche.  I used about 30 articles as sources for this topic.  Three of them mentioned LaRouche, or 10%.  The amount of text explaining the LaRouche connection is around 10%. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: *Violation of UNDUE. UNDUE, part of the NPOV policy, exists precisely to prevent the views of tiny minorities being added throughout the encyclopaedia. We do not add to Earth that the Flat Earth Society believes it is flat, or to Autism that Scientologists believe it doesn't exist, even if reliable sources can be found that tell us those groups hold those views. We may add that material to articles about those groups, but not to articles about the topics they comment on, because their views on those topics are tiny-minority ones. Similarly, we do not add to Eurasian Land Bridge that Lyndon LaRouche, the head of a political cult, claims to be involved in it, or is supportive of it, just as we do not add to Elizabeth II that he once accused her of being a drug pusher, even though multiple reliable sources have reported the latter, including the BBC. This is one of the most fundamental principles of NPOV. SlimVirgin 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by SlimVirgin

message: ;Reply to SlimVirgin
*Type "Eurasian Land Bridge" into Google and five of the top six links mention LaRouche.  None of the sources used for the text on LaRouche in this article are linked to the LaRouche organization.  Saying that two sentences in the body of an article of this length is "undue" is stretching the Undue provision to the breaking point.  If you look at the threads above, you'll see that several other editors have reviewed this article, including one for the DYK submission and Good Article assessment, and didn't have a problem with it. I'm going to notify the editors who previously commented on this issue about this RfC. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are more sources which mention LaRouche than mention the United Nations, which is why I put the information on LaRouche first.  I used several search terms when looking for sources for this article including "Eurasian Land Bridge" and "Bering Strait Crossing", both of which are related to the topic.  These terms produced several hits mentioning LaRouche.  I used about 30 articles as sources for this topic.  Three of them mentioned LaRouche, or 10%.  The amount of text explaining the LaRouche connection is around 10%. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Cla68

message: I was asked to comment by one of the participants, so I will comment as follows. From my point of view, the presence or absence of the paragraph about LaRouche is an absolute non-issue. That is, I can't imagine bothering to find out about, or to write about, LR's  opinion on these set of project any more than I would about the opinions of Boy Scouts of America, LDPR, Archbishop Diomid of Chukotka,  Ayatollah Khamenei, Dalai Lama,  Yasser Arafat, or Sun Myung Moon. On the other hand, if someone had put an effort into finding out and writing (with appropriate sources) about any of those parties opinions... well, I would be a bit amused (as I am now), but I would not  consider removing the text either.
Incidentally, I have the same opinion about having a section on the "trans-Bering-Strait" projects in that article. Any plans for such a fixed connection are obviously so "pie in the sky", due to the simple geography (look at a map of the existing roads, railways, terrain, and populated places on both continents!) that I can bet 1:10 that nothing like that will be built for at least a century to come. Nonetheless, I certainly don't see why I'd want to actually argue for removing that little section.
To be honest, I feel that wasting efforts arguing about the presence of  LR's (or SMM's, etc) opinions in this article is a bit like spending hours choosing a doormat for a house being built while the house does not have half of its roof yet. What I think this article sorely does need, is a map that actually shows the existing railway lines connecting the countries in question, as well as any possible serious projects. Another thing that ought to be added is some statistics about how the existing lines are currently used. (There is plenty of information about Russia-China links at the Transbaikalian Railway site that's used as one of the sources in the Zabaykalsk article, but I only used a small part of it for that article. I've seen articles in Chinese press about the matter as well, though don't have links presently. There certainly should be data about the usage of the "Nakhodka to Europe via Siberia" route as well. And of course it would be even nicer to unearth actual stats for the existing China-Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-Iran connection; after all, the line has been in operation for 19 years already... someone ought to have the data!). Those are 2 main things that I would do to improve this article if I had a couple days to spend on it, plus a suitably strong motivation (I don't). I think one of the authors has mentioned a few things along these lines in his wish list elsewhere in the talk page, but I think he is now too busy with this LR discussion to do that real work. Which, I think, is quite unfortunate. Vmenkov (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Vmenkov

message: To the question asked: Yes, if reliable sources exist that show that the LR movement has had influence. It is not enough merely to show this is their position, they need to have influenced the discourse. The reliable sources need not be in English. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Lar

message: Not sure if I'm "involved" or "uninvolved," as my feeling had been that I just didn't know. Seeing the actual articles quoted, my feeling is that it depends on the question of how important it is that a minority party candidate feels a certain way. Do we talk about Ron Paul's views of the Fed in the article on the Federal Reserve, for instance? I just checked and I see that we don't, and he wrote a whole book on the Fed. So I guess my initial view is that no, LaRouche doesn't warrant a mention in this article. That's just based on my own personal opinion and I'm not familiar to any great extent with how Wiki policies are applied. MajorStovall (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by MajorStovall

message: I pretty much agree with SlimVirgin - the LaRouche movement is at the fringe of politics, and there's no need to include their views in articles without a strong reason. That doesn't seem to be the case here, as the sources attesting to the importance of LaRouche's views are pretty weak. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Nick-D

message: ====Comments by Cirt====
What amount of a preponderance of independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Eurasian Land Bridge; also give significant discussion to Lyndon LaRouche? The proportion of weight should be proportional to this analysis. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A reposting of a comment made prior to this RfC which never received a response.
There's no question that the LaRouche movement has promoted a Eurasian Land Bridge and Bering Strait tunnel or bridge. The question for this page is whether their support is significant. A list of common platform items is at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. In WP articles on other signature issues, like the gold standard or colonization of Mars, we don't have any mention of the movement's advocacy. Is LaRouche mentioned in any sources about the ELB that aren't about or by him?   Will Beback  talk   10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously uninvolved editors

message: What amount of a preponderance of independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Eurasian Land Bridge; also give significant discussion to Lyndon LaRouche? The proportion of weight should be proportional to this analysis. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Cirt

message: :A reposting of a comment made prior to this RfC which never received a response.
There's no question that the LaRouche movement has promoted a Eurasian Land Bridge and Bering Strait tunnel or bridge. The question for this page is whether their support is significant. A list of common platform items is at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. In WP articles on other signature issues, like the gold standard or colonization of Mars, we don't have any mention of the movement's advocacy. Is LaRouche mentioned in any sources about the ELB that aren't about or by him?   Will Beback  talk   10:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Will Beback

message: Mentioning LaRouche at all is undue weight.  The way it is currently put is even more odd because it says "LaRouche movement and the United Nations" as if the two were somehow affiliated.  However, that doesn't really matter because references to LaRouche should be removed, whatever form they are in.  Yaris678 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Yaris678

message: I have to agree with Yaris. I simply don't see anywhere near enough sourcing to justify even mentioning LaRouche here. The comparison made by Will seems accurate. From my reading of LaRouche material this particular idea seems to be a perennial proposal among the LaRouchians. However, there's simply not anywhere near enough independent sourcing to justify its inclusion here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by JoshuaZ

message: I haven't seen anything to indicate (in light of WP:UNDUE) that LaRouche should be mentioned in this article whatsoever. Please see my comments below in the source analysis section for more detailed discussion. Kaldari (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Kaldari

message: I think this probably should be mentioned, but that the current description makes LaRouche sound too important.  It needs to be more arms-length, to reflect the fact that LaRouche is not generally considered a reliable or influential source, and rather is widely considered the opposite.  You could add as a sort of aside that the development of a Eurasian Land Bridge is an element of the political platform of the LaRouche Movement, but it needs to be given this kind of explanation, which conveys that this is an important issue to LaRouche, but not that LaRouche is important to the project/series of projects/concept itself.
In terms of policy, it's about the respective notability of these topics.  LaRouche shouldn't be mentioned on a very prominent topic even if the issue is important to LaRouche, because it would be undue weight.  But if it's an obscure topic, and it's important to LaRouche, then it isn't inappropriate to mention that fact.  If enough reliable sources that discuss LaRouche also discuss this as his proposal, for instance, then you could have a subarticle on this LaRouche proposal.  We don't have that, but considering this isn't exactly a wildly high-profile topic, I think a few reliable sources would support a brief mention if done correctly.  I agree with the comment above that the association with the UN goes too far, and I think the introductory sentence doesn't adequately convey the nature of the relationship between LaRouche and the "bridge." Mackan79 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Mackan79

message: I see no reason whatsoever to mention LaRouche on this article used to describe an actual route for moving things from point A to point B. If it were instead an article about fringy proposals to create some non-existant route from point A to point B, perhaps, but this is an article about "a term used to describe the rail transport route for moving freight and/or passengers overland from Pacific seaports in eastern Russia and mainland China to seaports in Europe." LaRouche has no involvement with this topic at all that I can see. The opinions of a tiny minority (LaRouche thinks X about this topic) should not be included per WP:UNDUE - LaRouche cannot have a significant viewpoint about anything except his own personal ideology. Just because he has a big internet presence does not mean that he's represented in reliable sources - rather that his supporters widely publicise him. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Hipocrite 

message: I agree that inclusion of LaRouche would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. He is, after all, only one of many fringe thinkers out there. His views belong on his page, and/or the pages of his movement. Ngchen (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Ngchen 

message: Agree that any significant mention of LaRouche, barring his verifiable participation in the bridge, violates WP:UNDUE. Including his name in a list of people supporting the project, as the article currently does, seems harmless enough. I would like to criticize the idea that he should be mentioned merely because his name comes up a lot when googling the bridge. The flaws in this logic should be obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Nwlaw63 

message: *Even if we had multiple reliable sources for this, it would not be appropriate to add it to this article (unless they were confirming independently of LaRouche that he was involved), but we don't. There are three sources, all dependent on LaRouche's claims about himself. There are two English-language ones that seem to mention LaRouche in passing, but we don't yet know what they say: (1) Joe Sciacca. "Race for 9th District; As races go, Joe would've loved this one," Boston Herald, September 10, 2001 and (2) The Virginian-Pilot. "Three Candidates Face Off In Bid For Incumbent Warner's Senate Seat; All Virginia Voters Will Decide Who Among The Candidates Will Begin Serving A Six-Year Term In January," November 3, 2002.And (3) a story about LaRouche, also dependent on his claims about himself, in Asharq al-Awsat, a Saudi Arabian, Arab-language, newspaper, with a translation by Google.  SlimVirgin 06:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've just noticed that the Arab source doesn't even connect LaRouche to the land bridge. All it says is: "In keeping with the approach represented by this heritage, the government invited the U.S. to adopt a foreign policy based on economic cooperation with countries in the developing world, by actively participating in building the Eurasian land bridge and infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, irrigation channels and the transfer of energy to link Africa and Asia and Europe through the Middle East ..."  SlimVirgin 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *To reply to Cirt's point above, no English-language sources devote any significant discussion, or any discussion at all really, to LaRouche's claimed involvement in this. He has been writing in his own publications for years that he is somehow pivotal to the project, in ways that no one can understand, and no reliable source has picked up on it. He similarly claimed to be behind Star Wars, as I recall. SlimVirgin 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *This assertion is untrue.  I found two English-language, reliable sources which mention that the Eurasian Land Bridge is connected to the LaRouche movement.  Also, what's wrong with using non-English sources?  If you look at the sources I used, most of them are from non-North American sources, basically because the object of this topic is outside of North America and the Commonwealth.  Even the two Newsweek sources I used are from the international edition. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have found no source about the land bridge that mentions LaRouche. Only two sources about LaRouche that mention the land bridge. Can you not see the difference? SlimVirgin 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not true.  The Virginian-Pilot source clearly states that development of international, linked rail transport routes throughout North America, Asia, and Europe is a key element in the LaRouche platform.  The Boston Globe article mentions a LaRouche candidate attending a political debate in Massachusettes and speaking about the Eurasian Land Bridge.  The Egyptian newspaper article confirms from the reporter's interview with LaRouche that the Land Bridge is an important element in LaRouche's political agenda.  The sources are solid. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cla, you keep missing the point here, and I'm going to assume good faith and accept that this is a genuine misunderstanding. The sources you are citing are writing about LaRouche and his claims. They are not writing about the land bridge. I can supply you with multiple, high-quality sources (BBC etc) that show LaRouche says the Queen is a drug pusher, and LaRouche claims the royal family is planning to assassinate him. Are you arguing we should use those sources to add LaRouche's claims to those articles? SlimVirgin 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about that. See the Federal Reserve analogy in my solicited comments. Having read WP:UNDUE and the other comments, I can't see how LaRouche can be mentioned at all. MajorStovall (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me show my work, at least.  A search of "Federal Reserve" returns 35,463 books on Google Books.  "Eurasian Land Bridge" returns 175.  "Lyndon LaRouche" returns 766 books, while "Ron Paul" returns 1049.  Thus, one informal survey of Google Books suggests that the "Federal Reserve" is 202.65 times more notable than the "Eurasian Land Bridge," while "Ron Paul" is only 1.37 times more notable than "Lyndon LaRouche."  I haven't thought of any good analogies, but the point is that unless there is other more notable material that should go in a decent-sized article, then any material covered by reliable sources is generally fair game.  I'm guessing the real concern is people don't want LaRouche supporters to be able to point to an article like this on Wikipedia and say "Look, this was our initiative, it says right there."  Or, they don't want people funneled to articles on LaRouche from something that looks like a real policy concept. If we word this correctly, something like I suggest above or Will Beback suggests below, I don't think those need to be a concern.  It strikes me as more strange not to mention it at all, where people will either be confused about whether they're in the right place, or call it a shut-out.  Serving the encyclopedic purpose in my view is to cover it briefly as we deem appropriate, based on the reliable sources available. Mackan79 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: You folks may want to take a look at some other article.  Including "CEC calls for progress on train technology" from the Townsville Australia Northern Miner of 19 June 2001, from which I excerpt the following:
 Mrs Harris said Australia was faced with the same challenge of development as China and high-speed maglev train technology should be embraced as the best opportunity for Australia to interact with the exciting development projects being undertaken in our region of the world. 
China's 'new silk road' is the centrepiece of the broader Eurasian land bridge proposal put forward by US physical economist Lyndon LaRouche as an engine driver for worldwide economic development and the only way for the world to build out of the current global crisis conditions of economic depression. 
``That Eurasian land bridge proposal has arteries that extend down through South-East Asia and the Malay Peninsula into Indonesia, which in turn will stimulate other major development projects like the Kra Canal in Thailand. 
So far as the fringey LaRouche fans go, that seems to be the best article out there.  It's more about the bridge than LaRouche, but he gets a mention.  You may also want to see "Candidate for Governor Takes the Broad View - LaRouche Protege Challenging McGreevey" from the Newark Star Ledger of June 14, 2001 by John Hassell, which discusses LaRouche and the bridge in depth in the context of Elliot Greenspan's unsuccessful run for governor.
The Bridge in the context of the LaRouche movement also comes up tangentially in "Senator Has Test Tuesday" from the Aberdeen American News of May 31, 2002 written by Scott Waltman.  Anyway, victory seems to go to the LaRouchers, for whatever it's worth.  Good day to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItMayBeWorthNoting (talk • contribs)  (Note: this is this account's only edit.) (Second Note:  So, what about it?) (Third Note: So, it's a sock account. Nothing new on articles with a connection to the LaRouche movement.)
* OK, we now seem to have six English language sources which confirm that this topic applies to LaRouche.  Most of the commentators in the RfC above, however, are concentrating on the weighting of the inclusion of the text, and the consensus so far seems to be leaning towards exclusion.  I'm going to proceed with developing the article, which will probably increase its length, and, if consensus remains the same, revisit the issue here on the talk page at that time. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some stuff

message: I think that this article could be the lead for a featured topic consisting of, besides this article, Trans-Siberian Railway, Bering Strait crossing, Trans-Eurasia Logistics, Trans-Asian Railway, Northern East West Freight Corridor, and, perhaps, New Eurasian Land Bridge.  In order to do so, I believe at least two of the articles need to be featured and the others at Good Article level.  I think there are enough sources readily available to take this one, the Trans-Siberian, and Bering Strait crossing articles to featured level.  It's a project that will probably take six months to a year to complete, but I'm game. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you aren't aware of the impending change to the FT criteria next year which would require 50% featured (see WP:FT? 3.a.ii) and all else would be a Good Topic. -MBK004 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay.  I think half of these articles can be brought to FA-level and the rest to Good. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured topic?

message: This seems excessive: "Changing the bogies on a rail car takes 5-6 hours". Surely Bogie exchange is more like 10 minutes per wagon, and several hours per train, depending on the number of waggons?
The plain BX ""facility at  Dynon, in a typical year (1981-82) 24,110 wagons were bogie exchanged, an average of 66 per day. This was done by one shift of 18 men, compared with the 100 men required if the same amount of freight was transferred wagon to wagon."
66 wagons in 8 hours, is 7.3 minutes per wagon. 
Presumably, the more efficient BX facility at Dry Creek would have taken less time.
It is not known if the 18 men were all working on the one waggon, or more than one waggon at a time.
Neither the Dynon or Dry Creek BX facility still exist, which makes it hard to confirm these details.
Tabletop (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Amen" to Tabletop's comments. Peter Horn User talk 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not overestimate the efficiency of any process involving RZD. When I last passed through Zaibaikalsk I think it took 3-4 hours for a whole passenger train, despite there being far more than 18 workers. We also need to distinguish between time-per-bogie and time-per-train; I think the latter is more practical. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogie exchange times. 

message: For whoever feels like spending an hour with Inkscape and drawing a decent map in SVG format that shows some of the major rail lines involved, all on a single map: this is how the resulting map may look: http://www.seat61.com/SilkRoute.htm (The map there is quite realistic, since it comes from an actual travel agent familiar with existing passenger services. Obviously, for our purposes (cargo transport), the BAM should be added, as well as the connections from Kazakhstan via Central Asia to Iran, and maybe also the new connection from Pakistan to Iran (Kerman-Zahedan). -- Vmenkov (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: Is this correct:
It has been suggested that on some lines variable gauge axles would achieve significant time savings in comparison to bogie exchange. Their implementation however would involve a much higher capital cost, requiring either retrofitting or replacement of existing rolling stock.
::Get real, get real, one does not need to replace the existing rolling stock, only the bogies or perhaps replace only the wheelsets with variable gauge wheel sets on the bogie, not the whole railroad car if the latter axle will fit. Peter Horn User talk 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely some rail journals somewhere address this issue? Cla68 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Variable Gauge Axles appear to be cost effective in Spain and on the border with France, otherwise they would not be used. Peter Horn User talk 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variable Gauge Axles cost 

message: *Afghanistan will use mainly  Indian gauge,  Russian gauge in the north part.
*Alaska, Canada and the continental United States should convert to  Indian gauge and double track electrification 25kV alternating current before they have their high-speed trains.
58.138.25.165 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian gauge/Indian gauge direct connection 

message: HIGH SPEED TRAIN
At 400 Km/h a high speed train can make the travel from Moscow to Beijing (6,000 Kms) in just 15 hours. And from Berlin to Beijing (7,500 Kms.) in just 18 hours...So less than one day.--88.24.241.95 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, only a 30 km stretch of train in Shanghai travels routinely at similar speeds. Aside from the gauge issue, it's likely that much of the route would require new track, and perhaps even new routes. Still, it's nice to dream about.   Will Beback  talk   04:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The Shanghai 30 km maglev line cost $1.33bn. 6000 km of line at the same price would cost $266 bn. Compared to air travel, it's hard to see how that would be economically viable. A single 747 costs about $260 million, so a thousand could be purchased for the same costs. Each plane holds about 500 people, so with one flight a day with each plane it'd be possible to move 500,000 people a day. I doubt that more than a few thousand people now travel between Europe and China daily.   Will Beback  talk   04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The great circle from Moscow to Peking is 6000km. A real railway would follow a longer route. The current route is more like 10,000km; the USSR spent decades - and a significant proportion of GDP and a lot of slave labour - to build it, after which the journey takes only 1 week. I suspect that any proposal for a 400km/h railway is founded on an underestimate of the engineering difficulties and an overestimate of RZD's competence. bobrayner (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: HIGH SPEED TRAIN

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eurasian Land Bridge. 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/20111127112131/http://eng.rzd.ru/isvp/public/rzdeng?STRUCTURE_ID=87 to http://eng.rzd.ru/isvp/public/rzdeng?STRUCTURE_ID=87
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Eurasian Land Bridge. 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/20111009185115/http://zabzd.rzd.ru/isvp/public/zabzd?STRUCTURE_ID=98 to http://zabzd.rzd.ru/isvp/public/zabzd?STRUCTURE_ID=98
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301104622/http://zabzd.rzd.ru/isvp/public/zabzd?STRUCTURE_ID=93&layer_id=4069&refererLayerId=3307&id=102261 to http://zabzd.rzd.ru/isvp/public/zabzd?STRUCTURE_ID=93&layer_id=4069&refererLayerId=3307&id=102261
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716200503/http://vladivostoktimes.ru/show.php?id=18199&p= to http://vladivostoktimes.ru/show.php?id=18199&p=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506092309/http://www.erina.or.jp/en/Ec/Forum2001/Session1/eKawamura.htm to http://www.erina.or.jp/en/Ec/Forum2001/Session1/eKawamura.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806125735/http://kapital.zrpress.ru/partners/2004/0701.asp to http://kapital.zrpress.ru/partners/2004/0701.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722121125/http://www.erina.or.jp/en/Research/dp/pdf/0409e.pdf to http://www.erina.or.jp/en/Research/dp/pdf/0409e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430190031/http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/pott/1999/11/09/siberia1/ to http://www.salon.com/travel/diary/pott/1999/11/09/siberia1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607183402/http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TIS_pubs/tarns-fulltext_2182.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TIS_pubs/tarns-fulltext_2182.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070927014437/http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/11/transasia_railw.html to http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/11/transasia_railw.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eurasian Land Bridge. 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/20130613122344/http://wyborcza.pl/1,126565,14012866,Pociag_Lodz___Chiny__trzy_razy_w_tygodniu.html to http://wyborcza.pl/1,126565,14012866,Pociag_Lodz___Chiny__trzy_razy_w_tygodniu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Lots of references to “current events” that are a decade old. Little information about actual current status of the route. Article needs cleaning up and updating. Added tag. alaskanjackal (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Updating tag