Talk:Moorgate tube crash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Apparent vandalism

Apparent vandalism removed - I hope this is the right place to note this. 17:50, 17 April 2006

Moorgate Control & Dead Mans Switch

I note that my correction to the term 'Moorgate Control' has been removed - I have worked for London Underground since 1976 and when I joined the drawing office were hard at work designing 'Train Entering Terminal Sidings' for most of the underground dead end stations & sidings. The normal abreviation used is TETS - I have never heard this used and since the motivation for adding TETS was not only Moorgate but some of the other dead end siding collisions such as Tooting I can't see this being used.

The second correction was to the Term Deadmans Switch - a term I have never heard used in my 29 years - it has always been the 'Deadmans Handle'. Deadmans Switch sounds like an American term.

John Murrell

I worked on the Underground as well and we always called it the "Deadman's Handle".Britmax 11:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

7 minute round trip ?

I know the Northern City Line had short runs but it was not that short. I understand the term "round trip" as the time to do a complete circuit e.g. Drayton Park - Moorgate - Drayton Park. If that is correct then I don't believe you can call at eight stations and change ends at either Moorgate or Drayton Park) in seven minutes.Pedantic of Purley 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

7/7 correction to "Most killed on LU in peacetime"?

Does this need altering to take into account the 7/7 bombings, or should it be changed to "In a single incident?" --jacksonj04 10:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No. it is correct as it stands. In the July 7th bombings the number killed on the London Underground (excluding the bombers themselves) was:

Russell Sq:26 Aldgate:7 Edgware Rd:6

Total 39

Even if you include the bombers themselves that makes 42 which is still fewer than those who died at the scene of the accident at Moorgate.--Pedantic of Purley 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suicide?

"However, in a 2006 Channel 4 documentary, a relative who interviewed the coroner that conducted the investigation was told (strictly off the record) that he believed that it was suicide by the driver."

If it's strictly off the record, I don't think it should be in the article and particularly not in the first paragraph. After all, another theory is that he suffered some kind of seizure. Wsbhopkin 08:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Driver Newson's drinking habits

The article gives the impression that Driver Newson did not drink alcohol. My recollection (unaffected, I hope, by the 31 years which have elapsed since the inquiry) is that newspapers, TV and radio all made the point that, according to his family, he _did_ drink, but only a bottle (half-pint) of brown ale, with his evening meal. (This involves a very small quantity of alcohol - brown ale at the time being typically about 3.0% - 3.4% ABV.) I have not consulted the printed record to prove this, but I am reasonably sure of my recollection. Hair Commodore 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i have just listened to the bbc radio 4 program "In living memory" on 2 dec 2009, which suggested substantial quantity was found in the drivers body in the autopsy, but like the article says this may have been due to bacterial degredation due to the amount of time the body was left. however this theory was contested by the doctors who conducted the post mortem. i think the article should be changed

Ghosts?

I recently saw a documentary on underground London where underground workers mentioned strange happenings etc. I'm not a believer in UFOs, spiritualism, poltergeists and all the rest of it but it did make me wonder. My mum drove trains on the Central and District Lines for over 20 years: she says many drivers and guards had such experiences which they were unable to rationally account for. Perhaps Driver Newsom may have 'seen something' at the end of the tunnel...? Certainly none of the explanations put forward seem convincing. And this is not meant to distract or trivialise in any way whatsoever the seriousness of the tragedy: as a 9 yr old I well remember being very upset by the news reports. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that speculating along these lines is particularly helpful. While the other explanations all have flaws, this is unconnected conjecture and wouldn't be relevant to the article. Brilliantine (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More on suicide

On the possiblity of suicide the article currently states "This theory is, however, not widely held, having been discounted by the two official investigations into the crash".

This isn't true. The official report (available at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoE_Moorgate1975.pdf) has the following to say:

"In the circumstances, the possibility that the collision was the outcome of a deliberate, suicidal act cannot be ignored, although there is no positive evidence to support it."

And in conclusion:

"Whether his behaviour was deliberate or whether it was the result of a suddenly arising physical condition not revealed as a result of the post-mortem examination, there is not sufficient evidence to establish."

I think it's perhaps a little misleading to say that the suicide theory is "not widely held" and has been "discounted" by official investigations.

What do other people think?

Christidy 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I've made what I hope is an appropriate change to the article. Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Greatest loss of life

There is a problem with the following statement.

in what was the second greatest loss of life on the London Transport system in peacetime (the first being the 7 July 2005 London bombings).

It says "WAS the second greatest loss" which would imply that in 1975 there had been a worse incident. ie not the 2007 bombing. Secondly, a previous comment states that the Moorgate incident had a greater loss of life than the 7/7 bombing. I do not know the true facts though, I am just pointing out the anomaly. MortimerCat (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The fatalities for 7/7 were 39 tube passengers, 13 bus passengers, and the four bombers, for a total of 56. Moorgate was (and is to this day) the greatest loss of life on the London _Underground_, but not the London _Transport_ system (i.e., under the auspices of TfL and its predecessors). Perhaps this needs clarification? Tevildo (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(Peacetime, of course. The biggest wartime incident was Bethnal Green, with 173 fatalities.) Tevildo (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The contribution of the tunnel diameter to the casulty rate at Moorgate

I believe the comment "The incident would have not been so bad...." etc is incorrect and should be removed. I was a scientist working on rail safety systems at the time and, along with my associates, followed the course of both the inquest and the inquiry on a daily basis. I distinctly remember, although I am unable to find reference to the fact in the official record, that the larger size of tunnel bore actually helped reduce the death toll by allowing the cars to ride over each other rather than "telescoping". I recall evidence by a senior fire service incident control officer that the vast majority of the fatalities were in the driving motor car and the injured were in the car squeezed above the first car against the roof of the tunnel. Had the tunnel been of normal tube stock side, the deceleration forces in the second and subsequent cars would have been much more severe, leading to a higher death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartinsmith2004 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

increased the speed

This text removed from article and moved here:

I haven't found any evidence for the statement that the drive "had actually increased the speed of the train"! It is false. The only evidence for that is what some passangers said that "it looked like" he was quickening or that they had the impression... which contradicted a guard who was at the station with his opinion that the train wasn't quickening. If you have ever been in subway and witnessed a train that is not stopping in the station, you probably know that it always looks like it goes unbelievably quickly and dangerously - it gives this impression... The fact that the driver didn't put his hands in front of his face doesn't prove anything too... The only fact that is really relevant is that he was holding the emergency brake till the end - which is the only reasonable behavior, the only responsible reaction... - User:81.0.251.130

In concur that there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the motorman increased speed as he entered the platform area. Passengers on the train gave collaborating evidence that the cars shook badly as they passed over the turnout at the platform approach which might have slowed them slightly. Any subsequent increase in speed would have been due to less rolling resistance as the last car cleared the turnout. All the platform passengers gave basically the same description: The motorman did did not move at all and appeared to be looking straight ahead. The postmortem confirmed that he hands were both on the controls in their normal operating positions at the moment of impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmartinsmith2004 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I have a copy of the official accident report and in it some woman shrink (I think) puts it down to something called "Akinesis and Mutation" or something like that where the mind goes blank even though you're in total control of what you're doing. I think that's what maybe happened here. I remember reading that the driver drank a beer with his breakfast, kind of odd but only ONE - hardly a DUI!

Have you ever gone to work every day, on the same streets, passing the same gas stations, same stores, same points of interest, same old lady selling flowers, same old guy hawking newspapers and come up to a red light and don't recall seeing any of it? Yet you didn't crash, swerve off the road, run over a pedestrian?? I think that's what happened. When you drive a familiar road you get "tunnel vision' sometimes. The 'tunnel vision' here was literal/ rodster1999@charter.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.254.213 (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims

According to a medical witness featured in this radio programme, "all" were black. That should be mentioned if the source is acceptable, or a better, more specific one is available. If in any doubt on this topic, if the crash had happened in, e.g. Africa, and all or most victims were Caucasian that would almost certainly be mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p2hy4/In_Living_Memory_Series_11_Moorgate/

EdX20 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Belated response, the comments in the programme did not relate to skin tone, but to the fact that the victims of the incident were 'black' from the sheer amount of dust that had been thrown up by the impact and subsquent events...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I question "Moorgate tube crash" since these lines are not part of the Tube network? Are they? Gordo (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The line was part of the London Underground system (Nothern Line) at the time of the crash and almost all contemporary news articles talk of the Moorgate tube crash or the crash at Moorgate tube station. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Moorgate tube crash

I read about this decision after Moorgate to put a 'trip cock' on signals. I drove the Underground in the 70's on the Northern Line (but never that branch)and ALL our signals had emergency brake trip cocks. You simply couldn't run a red signal without tripping the emergency break. It's a long time ago but, if I recall correctly, when training they purposely made you run a red signal at a slow speed to activate the Westinghouse so that you'd know how to reset the train. If my history serves me correctly I think this was something invented around the turn of the century. Was I dreaming??

I'd like to hear from anyone with an answer to this question - rodster1999@charter.net

Trip cocks at signals were standard on that line but to get into a station you had to pass a clear signal (or a caution signal) so no trip cock in entrance signal hence subsequent development use of trip cocks plus timer to get speed control. Very simple - if you get from timing initiation point to trip cock before it has time to lower to let you pass you are going to fast and it will stop you. Same principle used for Network Rail TPWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.21.201 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.254.213 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is made elsewhere in the article that at the time trains were signalled green into terminal stations. Therefore there would not have been a red signal nor a train stop. Even if there was a distant signal warning of the tunnel end (unlikely), this would not have had a train stop as they are only used at stop signals.--Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Law-sensitive section

"80 mg/100ml is the current UK legal limit for driving a car[11] (the limit at the time of the accident was higher)"

The above is sensitive to the current status of alcohol driving laws, and is a rather obtuse reference point due to the changing standards. Maybe the "current" law should be described in a way which is less ambiguous, such as the date the current law took effect. I don't know the customs for referring to British laws. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--I'm not at all sure the limit at the time for driving a car was higher. The article I found said the limit of 80 was introduced in the 1960s - also it is no longer a UK wide limit, the limit in Scotland was reduced to 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Moorgate protection

I can't parse this sentence referring to Moorgate protection: "The normal stopping position for a train is considered to have a signal fixed at danger and improved arrestors are placed beyond this point." What does "considered to have a signal fixed at danger" mean? Perhaps there is some railroad jargon that needs to be clarified. Mnudelman (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, with you on that one. Now done with a bit more detail. Dr Sludge (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Accident Details are not unwarranted

After doing some research and finding some very important details about the accident I inserted a series of quotes directly from a 1970s journal article written by one of the first respondents. This was removed because it was deemed "unwarranted".

The sort of detail in this edit is not uncommon to other disaster-based article on Wikipedia. From Hyatt Regency walkway collapse we have the following quote:

Those people who could walk were instructed to leave the hotel to simplify the rescue effort; those mortally injured were told they were going to die and given morphine. Often, rescuers had to dismember bodies in order to reach survivors among the wreckage. One victim's right leg was trapped under an I-beam and had to be amputated by a surgeon, a task which was completed with a chainsaw.

Other disaster articles have similar levels of detail.

The details of this accident should remain because a) they were written by a direct eyewitness and first responder, and b) because the level of detail is no worse than many other disaster articles on Wikipedia.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Please do not change the refs at Moorgate tube crash from WP:SFN to any other style, without first discussing it. Doing so unilaterally does not just break the links, it also goes against WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article had more than one variant of style, I am standardising to one of the formats. (This is the state of the article prior t my first edit, and it shows more than one format used.) As I am in the process of completely re-writing the article, I am doing it in the method I understand, rather than making a mess of a system I do not understand. If you wish to wikilawyer over something so petty, rather than using common sense to allow the article to develop, you should be asking yourself if you are being constructive or obstructive in your approach. (And don't worry about saying well done or thank you for completing the reference that had completely missed out one of the authors: just focus on the least important part of the article – the part that readers can't see and don't care about – and do the most heavy-handed thing you can!)

Thread moved from my talk page, which is an inappropriate venue to discuss an article's development. – Sigersson (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sigersson: You have not been editing Wikipedia for very long: your very first edit was to this article, just twelve days ago. Prior to your edit, the refs were a mixture of two styles: there were 24 instances of {{sfn}} in conjunction with three instances of {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} at the bottom (this is WP:SFN); there were also 10 instances of <ref>...</ref> tags enclosing a Citation Style 1 template (2 {{cite book}}, 1 {{cite journal}}, 2 {{cite news}}, and 5 {{cite web}}). The only reference which did not conform to one or the other of these two styles was the MeasuringWorth one used for an inflation calculation, but apart from that, there were no other styles, and certainly no instances of a plain text ref enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags, which is the style which you are enforcing. By a simple majority, WP:SFN was the previously-favoured style.

Not understanding a system is not an excuse to alter the referencing style: and is certainly not a good reason to alter it to a style that was not previously in use on the article. If you did not understand, all you needed to do was to ask: there are plenty of us around. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me when I began editing; I had already pointed out the state of the article prior to my first edit, so I have a fairly good idea of when I began editing. I am glad you acknowledge that there is a mixture of citation formats present on the page. I will ensure that during the re-writing process the citations are made consistent throughout; it is a WP:COMMONSENSE pathway, rather than going round in circles over the minutiae that does not affect the readability or standard of the article. – Sigersson (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing: but it should be consistency with one of the two styles which were already present. Imposing a third is not "a WP:COMMONSENSE pathway". Wikipedia is a collaborative project which works by consensus: disagreements are discussed, ideally before things go too far. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to insist that things are done in a confusing way that insists on some level of coding knowledge that scares off non-exexpert editors, or are you going to allow this article to just develop with the important bit: the content? The format of references is such a minute point that I cannot believe you are wikilawyering over something so inconsequential. I just want to re-write this, raising the standard of content to a higher level; I do not want to have to learn bloody coding when I am using a normal Wiki standard, nor do I want to argue the toss over something so pointless as the flaming reference formatting. – Sigersson (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's a minute point, why did you not leave the ref style alone and ask for help in putting new refs into the same style? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact I've half answered that point above, I'll let you answer the ones I have already asked. I'll point out that my free time is short, and I'd rather spemd it adding pertinent content to the article rather than pointless conversations of little benefit to anyone, particularly with someone who has left unsubstantiated and snide insinuations on the Railways project page. – Sigersson (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sigersson: - Redrose64 is correct, {{sfn}} was the preferred style before you started editing. It's not a hard template to use, and is useful where a large number of book references are used in an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Does it really matter if it is changed from one style to another, aside from a rather silly rule? 2. Are readers (remember them) going to give a toss about which version is used as long as a better version of the article is present? 3. Are editors really so hung up on the pointless minutiae of the format that they will stall the article's development just on a point of dubious "principle"?

There was an inconsistent use of templates present before. I am, during the process of the re-write, making it consistent with one of the standards used by Wikipedia. The article will be better than the rather tawdry version present, without the over-long, copyright-infringing quote that passes for a lazy subsistute for text in the middle of the article. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE step to allow the article to develop into something much better than it currently stands, without the inflexible adherence to a minor guideline.

As a reminder to those who have not bothered to look at WP:COMMONSENSE, it says "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation." – Sigersson (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter, because it could be seen as enforcing your own preference upon everybody else, and that is against WP:OWN. If you wanted consistency, the consistency should have been with one of the two existing styles, not some imagined "consistency" with something that had simply not been there previously. I will point out that WP:CITEVAR is not a "rather silly rule", it stems directly from an ArbCom decision more than eleven years ago.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not give you carte blanche to do what you want; you have mentioned WP:COMMONSENSE several times, I will direct you to the section immediately above that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, fuck it, if you are going to be so crass as to ignore what I have written and be so petty as to insist it is your way and no other, then I shall leave this article alone on the sub-standard state it is. Well done for some idiotic admining, some crass decision making, an inflexible mindset and a complete lack of common sense and perspective. This is a poorly writtem article, it contains incorrect information that is not supported by the citations, whichever fucking format they are in, and a bloody great copyright-infringing quote in the middle. If you are not a good enough copy editor t see that, and are only interested in enforcing rather silly little rules, rather than allowing an article to develop, then you are an obstructive bad influence on this article, rather than a benefit. – Sigersson (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong spelling on the plaque?

On the plaque it says: "IN MEMORY OF THE FORTY THREE PEOPLE […]". Shouldn't this be spelled "forty-three" (with a hyphen)? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sigersson: You wrote "no hyphen when the phrase is used predicatively". Where is that specified? All sources I found say that numbers from 21 to 99 in front of nouns are hyphenated. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-write

As I'm sure all article watchers will have noticed, I've been re-writing this article over the last few weeks. In terms of the major work it's mostly done, with the exception of the lead, which I am working on now. After I've tweaked and copy edited it, I intend to take it to PR, and them hopefully to FAC. Those processes are great for examining the prose, etc, but less strong on technical subject matters. I know this article falls under the train project (and others), and before I go to PR, I'd be interested in hearing from people if there are any gaps or errors I may have introduced on the technical side of things, about which I know little. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat - I fear I won't have much to contribute on the technical side, but yes, I had very much noticed your rewrite and wanted to compliment you on the excellent job. It's a colossal improvement to this important and interesting article. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks DBaK. I'm glad you think it's looking good so far. I need to do a couple more read throughs to get it right, and I'll wait for a few more days to see is any of the page watchers or stewards can see anything untoward in what I've written (and thank you Redrose64 for the 'cabin to cab' changes) and I'll take it to PR for a further brush up then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Northern City Line as a stand-in for the Tube?

Hello. With the greatest respect, I'm not sure that this edit was correct. It changed The last London Underground services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ... into The last Northern City Line services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 .... My problem with this is that I think the earlier version was more accurate - the older, ceasing, services were indeed operated by London Underground. Changing it to Northern City Line seems less accurate, because, as our own Northern City Line article makes clear, it's a label – not official, but widely used – for the line itself; that is, its physical reality in tunnels, track, signals, stations etc – the infrastructure. So I don't really think we can say that Northern City Line stopped when in one sense they never ran, and in another sense they are still doing so! I think the move from LU to BR is most elegantly shown with the older wording, which I have restored for now. Your mileage may, however, vary, so I will watch with interest for what others think, and don my flameproof trousers just in case. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DBaK. The problem with the old wording, "The last London Underground services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ..." is that it's incorrect. London Underground services continued to run, and still do. It's just that the Old Street to Moorgate service which was (informally?) called the Northern City Line stopped running into Moorgate. Any thoughts on how to re-work what we carrently have so that it is less inaccurate? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes of course you're right! Doh. I was so focused on the accident and on that station that I had somewhat forgotten the rather significant rest of the place. Sorry. The only really obvious thing to do is perhaps to combine the two so that it's absolutely clear what we mean: The last London Underground services on the Northern City Line ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975 ... or something along those lines. I do see the problem, that you can't stop the tube services without disambiguation - maybe this fixes it?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Would The last Northern City service ran into... work for you? – SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow reply. I hate to be pedantic but I still feel there should be a reference to it being the last Underground service on the line, otherwise it may sound as if we are confused about the relationship between the line and the services run on it. Sorry ... best wishes and in haste DBaK (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DBaK, and no worries about the pause! I've adjusted per your suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That works very well for me. Thank you for your endless patience! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

Fellow IP, Please don’t edit war over a sourcing matter on an FA. Linking to the BFI site just confuses the issue, but I see what you are trying to do. For a documentary, you need to use the proper information - not linking it to a page that refers to the documentary. You need to put when it was broadcast, what tv channel and when in the documentary the information was given. Alternatively you could see if the same information is referred to in other reliable sources. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness @109.249.185.61:, you were edit waring as much as me. I didn't put the source in - its been there for years and has been used for other information in the article. So obviously if I'd put the source in I wouldn't have linked it to BFI and would have just referenced the documentary, but that's the source that's already on the list. I'll put it in properly now. I tried sending you a message on your talk page about half an hour ago but you don't seem to want to admit to your error. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The BFI reference that has been there for years shows that a documentary took place (ie it did the job it was intended to do - just confirming that such a thing existed.

You need to add a new reference showing all the information I’ve outlined above (see Template:Cite AV media for the template needed and the information you need to show). I am happy to help if you cannot get it to work properly.

I saw, but I was opening the thread here, which was more important. The error in source formatting is yours, as you can see. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite my attempts to explain this for you you don't seem to understand anything. I'll say again: I didn't add the Me, My Dad and Moorgate source, it's been there for ages and was added (not properly, as you say) by another editor long ago. I also didn't add the content we're alluding to here, so I don't see how the source formatting error was mine. It was the error of the editor who added that source in. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, and you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say - obviously I didn’t phrase it well enough, so let me try and break it down a bit.

The Me, My Dad and Moorgate source has been there for years supporting information in the “In the media“ section. That is correctly formattend and a good reference.

That same source (ie the BFI source) is not good enough to support the additional information that was removed.

If you want to re-add something deleted, the WP:BURDEN is on you to ensure it is correct (ie, you need to have seen the documentary) and that the source is clearly done. In this case, you need to say where in the documentary the words were used. The Template:Cite AV media template is the correct one to use.

I hope this clarifies, but please let me know if there is anything still unclear in what I’ve written. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't need that to be clarified, you already told me the first time and I understood it, which is more than what can be said for you. Furthermore, what you've said there is incorrect. The inadequate BFI reference to the programme was there for years in the Bibliography section, and was not added by me. Whoever added it did not format the reference correctly. That is clear. Considering I was not the one who added it incorrectly, nor was I the one who added the information that is cited to the already incorrectly formatted bibliographic reference, it was not my error. I'm not talking about the "In the media" section, that's referenced to a different source (and as you say, correctly). I'm talking about the content referring to the overshoots earlier in the week of the accident.

I've re-added the stuff now with a correctly formatted source. I personally have seen the documentary and still have a copy of it, so I know the information that you removed from the article was correct, thats why I'm re-adding it.

I hope this clarifies, but please let me know if there is anything still unclear in what I’ve written. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re being rather aggressive in this, so I’m dropping out. I’ve reworked that formatting so it’s done properly and tweaked the text so it’s in line with how it should be done. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

109.249.185.61, I would like to know your full reasoning behind this edit. Your edit summary is "Ce", which is normally understood to mean "Copyedit" - but you did a lot more than that. Your edit included, for example, the reversion of several perfectly valid edits, such as this bot edit and two by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), which amounts to a regression. To be exact, you reverted 25 edits all at once, since the version of 01:07, 27 August 2020 and your version are exactly the same. It seems as if you were hoping that people would habitually skip over edits marked "Ce", enabling you to sneak through a controversial change without being noticed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Because most of the changes were not beneficial to the article. Yes, I should have noticed the bot changes, but the rest were not advances to the article (OVERLINKING, breaches of the MOS, use of US commas before quotes, etc, etc). As to what I was or was not “hoping” for: you don’t know what I was thinking or hoping for, so please comment on the content, not the contributor. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe my only non-revert edits impacted by the change concerned the content matter discussed above, so as that seems to be sorted I'm not fussed about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Soot and dirt was or were disturbed??

Header says it all really. It's been "was" for ages then back and forth and I'm tending to think "were", but maybe better to discuss here first. I'll revert my most recent flip pending a chat here. I hope 213.205.194.214 among others might turn up to discuss. Best to all DBaK (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi DBaK, I think it’s better as ‘was’, but there could be an argument for ‘were’, I suppose. It’s one act of disturbance and – to some extent – one thing (‘rubbish’) being disturbed. Cheers 213.205.194.214 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough! I am less than fully convinced of my own rightness here so happy to leave it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of days, and I think both sound right and wrong, depending on which way the wind is blowing, but I’m still unsure. Tim riley, do you have a thought on which is best? - 213.205.194.46 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)