Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash

Nominated for WP:ITN
This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the In the News section. However the general quality of the article including prose, level of detail and referencing may not currently meet the community's standards for linking om the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion of the nomination and or to help improve the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This nomination was closed as no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FRA audit underway before crash
NYTimes: N.J. Transit Was Under Investigation by FRA Before Fatal Crash, Federal Rail Official Says --Jeremyb (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's name the Engineer
I can see that at some point in the past, the name of the engineer was removed for some reason. (See hidden text below.) Now, the name of the engineer is present, and has continued to be present for a substantial time, seemingly without anybody raising an objection. Something has changed. What changed? I have an idea: Only now do they have an "innocent" explanation for the event. The engineer is said to have had undiagnosed sleep apnea. That innocent explanation takes a lot of the intentional onus for the accident out of the equation: The engineer may have caused the accident, but he didn't intend to do so. So nobody needs to protect him by concealing his name from the record. That explains why people objected to the presence of his name before, but they no longer do today. Am I getting warm? 174.25.50.88 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A few days ago, I added the name of the Engineer,. It was deleted without any explanation. I hadn't SOURCED it, but to fail to do so merely means one of two things: If the identification was wrong, it should be corrected and sourced. If the identification was right, it should be sourced. To simply delete the name amounts to a malicious concealing of relevant, accurate facts. The fact that somebody would intentionally remove the name, without sourcing or correct it, strongly implies that somebody is attempt to protect the guilty. That's one major problem with Wikipedia: People's self-interest gets in the way of accurate documentation. (or conflicts of interest, where people are paid by others to edit.)  I will again enter the name, and let somebody else add the source which I will write on the Talk page  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/thomas-gallagher-new-jersey-train-crash-engineer-c/  :  Everybody should pay attention if anybody tries to remove it again. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored my comment above. The person who deleted it falsely claimed that I had said somebody was "guilty" of something. Quite differently, I pointed out that the manner that the prior identification was removed IMPLIES (quote) that "somebody is attempt[ing] to protect the guilty". Mine was an accurate assessment of the motivations of the deleter, not an assessment of the guilt of the engineer himself. The fact that the deleter didn't even bother to add a comment to this Talk page is a sad, guilty statement of how anonymous people editing Wikipedia manipulate the record for secret, undisclosed reasons. They should be ashamed. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've identified Editor WWGB as the (ir)responsible party who deleted the identification of as the Engineer of the train. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Hoboken_train_crash&type=revision&diff=741842735&oldid=741842522  Rather than merely source it, or correct it if WWGB thought it wrong, it is clear that WWGB was trying to conceal the name of the Engineer, who was obviously correctly identified. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Malicious", "self-interest", "irresponsible"? Feisty words from an IP editor who cannot even form a simple citation. S/he might also care to read Biographies of living persons. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No reason to name the engineer unless they're listed as being at fault in the investigation. It adds undue weight to imply fault when none has yet been assigned. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * At fault or not, I see no good reason to name the engineer. I would also lean towards not naming the victim either. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Naming victims of incidents, once the names have been released by official sources, is less problematic under BLP and UNDUE. I don't see a really compelling reason to remove the victim's name from the article, but I could be convinced otherwise. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Today's NBC Nightly News just reported that in the minute before the collision, the engineer accelerated the train from 8 to 21 mph, then set the engine in neutral and applied the emergency brake.  71.222.37.253 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just caught editor WWGB deleting my comment immediately above, claiming "opinionated, unsubstantiated attack on a known person".  First, I am not aware of any rule prohibiting stating opinions on the Talk page.  Further, calling it "unsubstantiated" to refer to a national news media news report is certainly an odd thing to do.      ABC news reports (and other sources) report that 38 seconds before the collision, the speed of the train was changed from 8 to 21 mph, and the brake was put on 1 second before the collision, far too late to do any good.  Who, exactly, is editor WWGB attempting to protect?  Does he think it's proper to erase other people's comments on the TALK page of an article?   71.222.37.253 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have issued the following complaint about user WWGB on the WP:ANI Noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WWGB_vandalism_at_article_2016_Hoboken_Train   I encourage everyone to do a Google-search for 'Hoboken 38 seconds' to see that the news media is heavily reporting that 38 seconds before the crash, the speed of the train was deliberately accelerated from 8 to 21 mph, and the brake was activated a mere 1 second before the collision.     71.222.37.253 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Redacted personal attacks and BLP violations  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The changes in speed of the train will undoubtably be of interest in the investigation, but could be triggered by many factors, including electro-mechanical faults and failures. Conclusions should not be made from those facts alone, and especially not something which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see WP:BLPREMOVE).   Murph 9000  (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

NTSB photos
The NTSB has a selection of photos on their flickr page. I'm uploading some to Commons, and others can be added as needed. Most of the photos are by NTSB employees and (despite the flickr license) public domain by commons:Template:PD-USGov-NTSB. However, some are by NJT employees and are not public domain. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

belongings
http://www.northjersey.com/news/passengers-from-hoboken-train-that-crashed-can-claim-belongings-today-1.1674492 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

re-opening concourse
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/05/hoboken_terminal_concourse_reopened_7_months_after.html#incart_river_home

Engineeer
sleep apnea
 * http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/09/tests_said_nj_transit_crash_engineer_had_severe_sl.html#incart_river_home


 * See 2016_Hoboken_train_crash. I'll look at the article you cite and see if edits are in order.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "NTSB officials set a Feb. 6, 2018, hearing date when an official cause for the deadly train crash in could be determined in addition to possible recommendations resulting from the investigation."

Looks as though we have a few months before the official cause is announced.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Legislation 2018
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/gottheimer_just_got_his_first_bill_past_the_house.html

Update required
Currently the introduction states: "The events leading up to the crash remain unclear but are currently being investigated." Does that hold still true, 5 years after the accident? --77.2.92.54 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Updated. 173.52.235.103 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Connection to an EAS the day before.
I made an edit to this article on July 8th, 2021, regarding an emergency alert that broadcasted a day before the accident on WKTV, where the alert states that there is a hazardous materials warning and then, unusually, says “Would you. Could you. (sic) On a train?” It was removed under the clause of not citing accurate sources (which included news articles and a link to WKTV’s own statement on the incident) and against Wikipedia’s stand on “predictions” (It was not a prediction, and can be completely verified by the sources listed in the Edit History), as well as “not being relevant to the article.” Personally, I believe that this section of the article should be added back as it seems like it has an obvious connection to the events of the Hoboken train crash.

And no, this isn't "Conspiracy Bullshit", as the user who removed this comment claimed it is. I believe it should be reviewed over and at the very least, be given a small mention in the article itself. This should be open to discussion and shouldn't be removed without warning under the clause of "conspiracy bullshit". Even if there is no true connection between the emergency alert and the crash, it should be mentioned.

Maerenneburg (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the removal of your additions have already been explained to you. There are no reliable sources that draw any connection between the emergency alert and the crash; that random Youtube video is not a news article and is nowhere close to being a reliable source. The tweet only mentions the existence of the emergency alert and makes no mention of the crash. You are claiming that there is a connection between the events, i.e. that someone had foreknowledge of the crash, which is an exceptional claim; per Wikipedia policy, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Lacking that exceptional evidence, your claim that some hidden power caused both these events is precisely the definitely of a conspiracy theory and is wholly unwelcome here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a Snopes article confirming the EAS message. Is this legitimate enough?
 * https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-television-station-broadcasts-bizarre-warning-before-hoboken-train-crash/ 2600:1012:B1C2:12B5:C89:A684:306:FB9E (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'll have to make this explicit. Snopes did not simply postulate that "Would you. Could you. On a train?" was probably broadcasted on TV. Snopes reached out to FEMA. A real FEMA employee gave an explanation.
 * "The EAS device installed at the TV station was configured to poll a test and development message aggregator instead of or in addition to the production message aggregator. Wednesday evening a developer was testing his software and sent several messages into the test and development message aggregator populating the message field with some Dr. Seuss lines. The developer never intended for the public to see his test message and the TV station was unaware that its EAS device was monitoring a test environment. The EAS device was re-configured and the unsuspecting developer briefly lost his access to the test environment while FEMA confirmed that there was no ill intent by any party."
 * The official narrative is that the EAS message really was televised but accidentally. The claim is that randomized Dr. Seuss quotes were inserted into the program and this specific quote was televised because that specific station, WKTV, accidentally was monitoring a test environment. It is a fact that the EAS message was real. 2600:1012:B1C2:12B5:C89:A684:306:FB9E (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)