Talk:2017 Washington train derailment/Archive 1

How did it happen?
Does anyone know how the train derailed exactly? Alex of Canada (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It just happened. It will take a while for an investigation into the cause. Natureium (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Under investigation. That the train derailed on a curve might give a big clue as to the cause. Until we hear from an official source, no speculation please. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Couldn't somebody at least provide information that is not controversial but informative? It's not even clear from the photos in what direction the train was headed. The number of passengers and crew is available, and the number of derailed cars. But not the overall number of cars on the train (i.e., number derailed + number not derailed). Roricka (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, all but the engine derailed. We can't know anything that isn't reported by the media, and the media doesn't know the cause, other than that speed wasn't a factor. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The train was travelling (Br.Eng) from right to left in the photos on most news sources looking at the bridge with the graffiti on it (locomotives at rear of train). Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They know the train was going only slightly faster than the speed limit of the section. Not quite the same as knowing speed wasn't a factor Closetsingle (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An overspeed of ~2% should not be the difference between safety and disaster. Needs to be a much bigger difference, such as the Eltham Well Hall rail crash, which was an overspeed of 225%! Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was pointing out that "the train wasn't overspeed" is not the same thing as "speed wasn't a factor". Closetsingle (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to be that specific, speed is always a factor, because a stationary train won't derail. Natureium (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant more in the sense of perhaps the track speed was set incorrectly. But you point is fair, I suppose that wouldn't be consistent with the general use of "speed as a factor". Closetsingle (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that more photos are available, it doesn't help to say the train was traveling from "right to left." That depends on where the picture was taken. 209.131.225.199 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's not speculate. But...
 * Google StreetView is circa 2016 and shows construction equipment near rail line. That suggests the rails were recently improved.
 * The curve radius from Google Maps looks like 350 ft.
 * Minimum_railway_curve_radius article seems to say for 120 kph, one wants a 160 mm cant and a 450 m radius if the train can tilt.
 * Glrx (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speculation aside, all construction on the bypass (including this segment) was wrapped up in December 2016. Testing began in January.  Sounder Bruce  20:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of cars (December 18)
KCPQ reports on-scene that 13 of 14 cars derailed. This contradicts the car count (7) in the article right now ☆ Bri (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been updated in the article.  Sounder Bruce  20:59, 18 December 2017
 * From what I can make out, the count of 14 is two locomotives and twelve carriages. I think the trainset is a locomotive each end of the carriages, but I'm not 100% sure. It will no doubt come out in the NTSBs final report. FWIW, one of the locomotives was #181. (CNN ref, currently #10). Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)(UTC)
 * The count of 14 would include the two locos and would not be 16 vehicles. KOMO picture shows two locomotives; lead loco is parked on I-5; pusher is on track; car in front of pusher has aerodynamic feature. In the picture, I see 2 locos and 11 cars; a 12th car might be obscured by the bridge (hit abutment and deflected under bridge?). Glrx (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rail cars on south side / north side of bridge confusing.
The article says the lead locomotive and some cars went down the south side of the bridge, and others went down the north side of the bridge. From the maps and schematic, it looks like the lead locomotive and some cars went down west of the bridge, and others fell from the east side of the bridge. 209.131.225.199 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the freeway and the rail line are "north-south" notionally (Seattle to Portland) but actually northeast to southwest in this area, with the rail bending southwards upriver along the Nisqually River valley for a while. This KOMO TV image is north-up, same orientation as our current inset graphic . It might be simpler to refer to the inside of the curve as the south and the outside as the north, but you could also say inside=east and outside=west. In the KOMO image, it looks to me (and I drive this road a lot) that the lead locomotive, to left of frame, went around the outside of the curve with 5-6 cars down the railroad embankment nearly due west and landed on the interstate. I'm actually surprised it stayed right side up the whole way – the trestle is high enough for semis to drive under so the embankment must have been a 20 foot drop at least. Some more cars jackknifed on or nearly at the trestle, and some more were pushed away and went down the inside of the curve on the east side. Of course this is all speculative and we shouldn't be too specific until official reports are at hand. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current text is wrong (or at least misleading). The incident happened after a relatively tight left-hand bend. Logically, that would send the train off to the right - outside the curve. Our diagram supports this, with the front of the train having gone to the right of the direction of travel (the left hand side of the image), and the rear half of the train going on the opposite direction, once the train divided. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the bridge was actually oriented north-south, there would be an east-side and a south side of the bridge. What's called the "south side" in the article seems to be more north facing than south, and vice-versa. So, what wording should we have to fix it? 209.131.225.199 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't like south/north when I wrote it, but west/east seems even more confusing. I thought about using Portland-side and Seattle-side, but that seems even more stilted. The inside/outside distinction is relevant for the physics, but right/left is probably the easier term to understand. While approaching the bridge, the train derailed to the right, it jacked, some cars went on the bridge, and the rearmost cars of the train went to the left of the bridge. In other words, directions relative to train tracks will probably be simpler. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree left / right would be simpler, if it is understood those directions are as viewed from the direction of travel. 209.131.225.199 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Name
According to List of accidents on Amtrak, it looks like articles are generally named for the city or county a train derailed in, rather than the state. Why was this article "moved"?

I put moved in quotes because the mover copy-paste moved the article, and WP:MOVE explicitly says: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content". Natureium (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this should be moved to 2017 DuPont train derailment or something similar. "Washington" is a large state, with a large rail network. This title could easily describe an Amtrak accident elsewhere from this year...like this one in July.  Sounder Bruce  18:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Pierce County, WA train derailment, as neither WaPo not NYT specifically name Du Pont as the crash site. Edit: CNN says "near Dupont, Washington", rather than in Du Pont. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it should be moved back to DuPont train derailment, which is where I originally created it at. A more specific location in the title is preferable to a more general location. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree it should be renamed to DuPont train derailment. I actually think it should be 2017 DuPont train derailment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting that train derailment articles seem to have the year in the title, while editors of US terrorism articles are hell-bent on removing years from titles. Natureium (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you "moved" it in an improper manner. Akld guy (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that and  both created articles a few minutes apart,  later redirected the less complete article to the article he created, and then  came back and copy-pasted Mjroot's article into the article he created. I think Rickyc123's move is the problem. Redirecting a stub to a longer (but still stub) article isn't improper.  Natureium (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing! I redirected this title to the article I created because the article I created was in a much better developed state, and at a much better title. There was nothing in this article that was not already in the article I created. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't delete the contents of an already created article and turn it into a redirect. That's improper. Akld guy (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked at WP:AN for assistance with the history merge. Once that has been done, we can sort out the final title. For now, let's concentrate on building a decent, well-referenced article. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to wait. These processes can happen simultaneously. Natureium (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * has done the honours. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And please note, this was only to resolve the copy-paste history merge, with no determination of what the best article title should be. Feel free to discuss and move as appropriate. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, using Pierce County is too general (the accident I linked was in the same county). DuPont is the nearest city to the site of the derailment, and it can also be described as part of the Nisqually area (name of the river crossing and wildlife refuge; used by The Seattle Times and CNN). I would prefer we don't consult national/international sources about what location to use in the title, since they don't need to disambiguate beyond "Washington state".  Sounder Bruce  18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But if Pierce County is most accurate, it should be used anyway. If necessary, it could be December 2017 Pierce County train derailment. Or if the other incident was minor enough that it doesn't merit an article, Pierce County train derailment would work anyway, with a note at the top. Natureium (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many places named Pierce County in the United States, so not a great non-disambiguated title, I think ☆ Bri (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I support a rename to DuPont train derailment. The local name appears to be the most common name given to train derailments (see Template:2017 railway accidents). --Enos733 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per precedent with other train incidents, as well as common search terms.  Sounder Bruce  01:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Washington train derailment → Amtrak 501 – Per how plane accidents are named after the flight number, this was "Amtrak 501", and how the recordings of the communications between the conductor and central identify the train. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't happen with other train accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2017_railway_accidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.69.117.201 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I have not seen any cited cases where a train number has been retired. Is there any cases of this or any Wikipedia articles named by Amtrak's train numbers. Also Amtrak train number usage is not as common as the train names. A more proper rename would be 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment since it would have the train name in it. Sawblade5 (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 23:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sawblade5: That's not bad actually ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The location of the incident (DuPont?) needs to be included in the title. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Per Sawblade5's reasons. Also, Wikipedia's List of rail accidents, list accidents by location, rather than train number.  Dinky town   talk  23:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem with the location-based names is the location. As I said above, is it DuPont, JBLM, Nisqually, Mounts Road, or Pierce County? Or even Interstate 5 or Point Defiance Bypass or Lakeview Subdivision? Yuck. It's unambiguously the Amtrak Cascades. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It's nearly the end of 2017 and heaven forbid, unlikely that there will be another Washington rail disaster before the end of the year. Stick with this title. Akld guy (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose - "Amtrak 501" is not a likely search term, and "2017 Washington train derailment" is fine with me. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Suggestion was made in good faith, but I believe it's clear there is a misunderstanding on how these articles are named. Oppose. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is clear precedent on how articles on this subject are titled. Though I do agree that "Washington" by itself is insufficient given that name is used by close to 60 other places in the US.Metropod (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a plane. Planes and trains are different, in that we usually label train accidents by general location or by line. epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2017 Washington derailment II
Contrary to what Akld guy said, there was another significant Washington derailment this year on July 2 at Steilacoom (nearby this incident). It didn't have a Wikipedia article (yet) so maybe this should be discussed again? I dunno. I still liked the title "2017 Cascades derailment". Unfortunately the other incident was also an Amtrak Cascades ; oh well Bri.public (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The derailment was very minor and would not be able to have a standalone article. There were a few other derailments of similar importance (aka non-notable) this year and last year on the Cascades. Definitely prefer DuPont train derailment.  Sounder Bruce  03:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Speed limit along derailment segment
The article currently states the speed limit at the derailment segment is 79 mph, as reported by itv news: "The maximum speed along the stretch of track, known as Point Defiance Bypass, is 79mph, according to information about the project posted online by the Washington State Department of Transportation."

According to this pdf from WSDOT, the speed limit is actually 40 mph where the derailment occurred: "Upgrades tracks and improves existing connection to BNSF Railway main line so trains can travel up to 40 mph from Nisqually to Mounts Road and 79 mph from Mounts Road to Bridgeport Way." — Drew W. (talk • contrb.) 22:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the derailment section of the article to cite the WSDOT PDF's speed limits. — Drew W. (talk • contrb.) 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple news reports   state that the limit at the accident site is 30 mph. Bo Lindbergh (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bo Lindbergh. I updated the limit based on recent article from Seattle P-I. The thing about the report that the train was traveling at 81+ mph at the time of derail is that there is a delay in the reporting of the trains position and speed on the Amtrak "Track Your Train" web page. In my experience, this can be as much as 5 minutes. So while it may have been true that the 501 was going 81mph through Lakewood or DuPont proper, the site probably hadn't been updated to reflect the actual speed of the train at the time of the derail. Kusskedp (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)kusskedp

Does a misinformation section violate NPOV?
I created a section on misinformation about the incident, which was later reverted because it didn't "fairly represent" the other side.

Is it required for Wikipedia to give credit to fringe views?

Sources:

http://www.newsweek.com/antifa-falsely-linked-amtrak-train-derailment-right-wing-conspiracy-peddlers-751893

https://www.buzzfeed.com/janelytvynenko/antifa-amtrak-alt-right

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/amtrak-derailment-antifa-al-qaeda — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganWoodShop (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That something absurd was published on Infowars or Mike Cernovich said a dumb thing is no reason for us to take notice. We would need to see that whatever silly thing Infowars or Cernovich said today was noticed by someone who matters, or had some verifiable influence. It's sad that Newsweek is wasting time on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw this on Twitter yesterday. It's much the same as ISIS claiming responsibility whenever an aircraft crashes and usually the truth turns out that they had nothing to do with it. No reason to mention this nonsense in the article unless there is solid proof to back the claim. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I can't find any other way to interpret Trump's tweet than he is claiming responsibility for this accident. He says it wouldn't have happened if we had fixed our infrastructure, and he says everyone has been waiting on him to even begin. Still waiting. Sad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Local knowledge v. national media - confusion over place names and more
I've seen some errors in national media that we should watch out for Another point I wish there was a way to get in here, without going into OR territory, is that this is a major chokepoint in the Puget Sound Region -- there are no through-roads from Seattle-Tacoma to Olympia on the Puget Sound/Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge side of I-5 (north), and you have to go way, way around the base through approx. Yelm on the other side of the base (south). The freeway shutdown is going to be a big deal, bigger than the 2013 I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse because there was an easy detour to another bridge just up the river there. And now, looking at the comments above, one of the locomotives actually plowed off the rail, down 20 feet or so and onto the highway surface ... there's going to be some significant road repairs required even after all the investigations, measurements and heavy moving are done. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Providence St Peter Hospital is in Olympia 1/2 mile from the Lacey city line, not in Lacey (is also locally called St. Peter's)
 * Lakeview subdivision begins in Lakewood
 * DuPont is frequently misspelled (even by CNN)
 * What do we call this exactly? DuPont, JBLM, Nisqually, Mounts Road, Pierce County etc.?
 * Calling it an "Amtrak train" is an over-simplification due to different owners of the route, tracks, and the operator, Amtrak
 * Q re freeway. If this was in the UK, it is likely that a contraflow would be set up on the other part of the motorway (U.S. = Freeway). A single file of traffic in each direction with cones separating the traffic lanes. Reduced speed limit in force but this allows traffic to flow in each direction. Is it different in the USA? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That woudln't happen in the UK while there are derailed vehicles on - and hanging from - a damaged bridge, overhead. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The cars aren't hanging over the northbound portion of I-5 which is completely separated from the southbound lanes. So maybe it could be done. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Locally that bridge is referred to as the 'Nisqually tressel' and on the Northbound side the commercial truck scale is known as the Nisqually scales. The valley just to the South of the derailment is the Nisqually Valley which is just south of the town of DuPont. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Local media is saying that the southbound Lanes of Interstate 5 will be closed through Tuesday Morning's commute. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Crew?
Why the big secret about the engineer? Alive or dead? Blood tested yet or not? What's his (or her, gender is not the issue) story, or did he lawyer up right away?

Infobox says crew of 7; text says 5. So what's the most updated number?--Nø (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seven crew members, according to the updated reports from the state patrol to media.  Sounder Bruce  08:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've just amended the figure to 5 crew and a Talgo technician per the quoted source. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Leave the Talgo crew out of the infobox. Which source(s) mention this? The state patrol doesn't go beyond the total number of crew (and they're the source for most of the information used by the media).  Sounder Bruce  08:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Amtrak says 5. Seattle Times says 7. KOMO says 6. The AP, updated a few minuteds ago, says "80 passengers and five on-duty crew on board". Perhaps that means that in addition to 5 working crew, there were 1 or 2 Amtrak crew who were not working but were passengers, and adding them together gave the higher numbers in some sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - CBSNews mentions the Talgo technician. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Locomotives
Is the number of the Siemens Charger locomotive known yet? Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some images from news media show the number 1402.  Sounder Bruce  08:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Images
Are any of the images posted to social media by various local/state government agencies PD, or at least open licensed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Washington does not have the kind of public domain requirements that California has. Best we can do is wait until the NTSB releases their report, which comes with public domain images from the scene.  Sounder Bruce  01:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We should keep an eye on DVIDS in case the base sends people out, maybe to assist NTSB. Anything Federal is PD of course. I checked Flickr several times and found nada. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems not. The next best thing, then, would be for someone (preferably local) to aproach the authorities involved, via their press office(s), and request a release. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

commemorative lanyard
travellers got a "Every passenger was given a commemorative lanyard and badge to mark their journey, he said." according o the bbc article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42408624, that is used as a reference. i feel the article would gain a lot of quality with a picture of one of those.95.96.236.43 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Carriages
The carriages uses appear to be Talgo Pendular stock. Can we source this info and add it to the article please? Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is well sourced at Amtrak Cascades, maybe a sentence or so could be copied here? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove Background section.
The background doesn't have anything to do with this incident. It's just facts about the history of Point Defiance Bypass thrown together without any though into how the section should be structured. The background should be what happened while the train was en-route, but before the derailment. I propose the entire section (as it currently is) be removed. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 03:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The train derailed during the first public trip on the bypass, which is worth mentioning. But what is the bypass? Why is it significant? The background section is essential, even if it needs work.  Sounder Bruce  03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That information is not currently in the background section. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 03:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to BOLD this and empty the section. It's currently just a collection of facts about the bypass (not the derailment), feel free to revert if you want. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what "WP:BOLD" says you ought to be doing, but that's moot. Your criticisms might be reasons to fail a Good Article nomination, but they are hardly a reason to nuke a well cited section of an article already tagged as a developing event in progress. Deleting content because it's not quite perfect violates editing policy. The relevance of the Port Defiance project is mentioned in nearly every news source. The fact that this is the inaugural run of the project is mentioned in every source. To say that this is not relevant is you arguing with our sources. That is original research and soapboxing. If our sources give significant space to this, then we should give space to it also, as prescribed by WP:DUE. We should follow our sources, not contradict them. I added a lengthy article from The Olympian which is focused entirely on the relevance o f the project to this crash. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't really made my point very clear, take a moment to read the section as by itself:
 * "The Point Defiance Bypass was built from 2010 to 2017 as a replacement for the BNSF mainline located along the Puget Sound between the Nisqually River and Tacoma. The $181 million bypass, using an inland route that follows I-5, was built by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on right of way owned by Sound Transit, the regional transit authority. The Amtrak Cascades service is a joint effort of Washington State and Oregon Department of Transportation, with Amtrak as a contracting operator. In the wake of the December 18 derailment, the safety of the bypass was questioned by elected officials.


 * On July 3, 2017, several cars of a Cascades train derailed while traveling on the BNSF coastal route near Steilacoom. The accident, which had no fatalities, was blamed on the engineer traveling faster than the posted speed limit while approaching a drawbridge."


 * Anyone reading this section by itself should realize that the section is not about the background for the train derailment, it's a background about the Bypass. That belongs in the bypass article, not this one. A brief mention that the train was on the bypass and that it was the first passenger train on it is fine, but how much the bypass costed, who owns the right of way, and the fact that the bypass was a project between Washington State and the Oregon Department of Transportation is not relevant to the crash itself. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It belongs here because the sources about the train derailment cover it. If the train derailment coverage gives weight to the Bypass, then we must give weight to it. We know it's relevant because our sources tell us it's relevant. You keep repeating that it's not relevant but you haven't cited anything except your own opinions. I cite WSDOT, The News-Tribune, The Post... all of them. In The NYT it's in the very first line of the story. The BBC. Sources. Why is this in the article? Sources. Why do we say it's relevant? Sources. Why is this the backgorund to the derailment? Sources. That's why.Where is your basis for excluding this? You haven't cited anything that has said the coverage of the Times or Post or BBC or ALL OF THEM is wrong. You need to come up with a source that says gives us good reason to doubt the sources we're following. Otherwise, forget it. You've got nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiability (Policy), Summary_style, Notability (Guideline) Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 05:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And WP:WEIGHT? How do we determine how much weight to give any part of an article? However much we feel like? Whatever we want? No. How much our sources tell us. That's why the very first thing it says at your link, right after "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", is "See also: WP:UNDUE". It goes on to say that ultimately this is decided by consensus. You are failing to win consensus to eliminate this section. WP:NOPAGE is irrevant; we're not discussing eliminating a standalone page. WP:SUMMARY fully supports the background section: we aren't reproducing the entire Point Defiance Bypass article here, we're only summarizing it because it's relevant, and readers need this context to understand this topic. It's fine. There are much bigger problems to address while you're crusading against this section, which at worst could be accused of being a little redundant. It's not, but even if it is, let's fix more urgent issues first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE explicitly states it's about Point of view (philosophy), not facts that don't have a POV. WP:Summary Shows examples of a good Background, it shows the WWII article, and if you read the section, you can tell it's about WWII, it explains how WWII came to be, the current background section does not explain the events leading up to the derailment. Readers do not need to know how much the bypass costed, who owns the right of way, and the fact that the bypass was a project between Washington State and the Oregon Department of Transportation to understand the topic. If anything, the section actually hurts readers who want to know more about the crash itself. Readers are not coming to read about the bypass, they come for the article about the derailment. wp:NOPAGE says "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page" I.E. the Bypass Article.
 * And an unrelated issue, I have been nothing but respectful to you and I expect the same from you. Other editors have noticed this dispute and put a notice on the top of this page for us. I'm not going to stray from the issue we're debating to go over this again. Thank you. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to mention that the Background section serves to provide context. Once investigations are finished, there will be a lot of names thrown around (WSDOT, Sound Transit, FRA, BNSF) that will need proper context that is easier to digest when presented in a single section.  Sounder Bruce  07:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the July 3 derailment relevant? It leads one down a path of similar thinking un necessarily. I sugggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.253.62 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be relevant once the cause of this accident has been officially declared. At the moment, excessive speed on a curve looks to be the most likely cause, but until the NTSB declares it as fact, it is speculation. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was making jokes about the President, but the fact is it hasn't been "officially declared" that spending money in the Middle East rather than on infrastructure was the cause of this accident. The NYT followed the AP by pointing out that not only was this this infrastructure hardly crumbling but brand new, but also the money came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by Obama. You could argue that Trump's speculation is as poorly thought out and irrelevant as those speculating that Antifa sabotaged the tracks or that the July 3 derailment was involved.So why do we even mention Trump's tweet? Because he's the President. And because nearly all our news sources mention Trump's tweet. It's not us judging the value of what goes into an article. It's us paying attention to our sources and following their lead. If we write article based on our individual preferences, than a different group of editors would write a totally different article. If a different group of editors followed the same principles we follow, then the article they write should look about the same as ours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Rail sabotage claim
I don't know what to do with this so I'm just leaving a formatted link ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC) More sources:
 * Puget Sound Anarchists heavy.com
 * Antifa, Al-Qaeda, or infrastructure: Far-right split on Amtrak Derailment Cause Daily Dot
 * Antifa, Al-Qaeda, or infrastructure: Far-right split on Amtrak Derailment Cause Daily Dot

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/29/anti-fracking-activists-and-anarchists-are-blocking-rail-tracks-in-olympia-they-dont-plan-on-leaving/?hpid=hp_rhp-morning-mix_mm-fracking%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.783b798220bf

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article115608473.html

http://archive.is/6E74K

Bk33725681 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Stranger has published comments from an anonymous activist who claims to be from that group, denying their involvement.  Sounder Bruce  01:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should do something with this well-sourced info, but obviously it will be controversial. I'm going to create a draft passage and post it here for comment, unless another editor gets to it first. For immediate comment -- does anybody see a problem mentioning the Port Militarization Resistance in this context (with sources of course)? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to mentioning anything about conspiracy theories until the investigation says it was something other than taking a curve at twice the listed speed. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of cars
The lead says 12 cars, the article laters says 13 of the 14 cars derailed. Which is accurate? Natureium (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably a terminology mishmash: there were 12 passenger cars plus two locomotives, I think ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just corrected it. Whilst we're on the subject, can we please not use "car" for a railway carriage. It is both incorrect and confusing, as (motor) cars were damaged in the accident. Carriage is clear in its meaning. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet Railroad car is the enwp article *headscratch* ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That article says The term "car" is commonly used by itself in American English when a rail context is implicit. In this case, it is not for reasons outlined above. Let's stick to the UIC term. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just did an e/c before seeing this section. Carriage makes no sense to a US speaker. If you say carriage, they first think of perambulator. Glrx (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, what about passenger car with a (Br. Eng: carriage) after the first use? Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What about we go with what the RS in the region say? KOMO News: "car". CNN: "car". The Atlantic: "car" and "coach". CBS: "car". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Railroad car is the common term in the US. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps requests?
I'm working now making maps of the area. Over at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/geodatacatalog/default.htm they have all the GeoData, including the routes of all the rail lines and roads. There's a map over at Point Defiance Bypass, though we probably one a more simplified visual such as the one at https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC_PtDefiance/Map.htm

Right now I'm going to design one that looks much like the Seattle Times map. The maps at CNN, NYT, and USA Today look pretty lame in comparison. Please let me know what you'd like to see on the graphic and I'll see what I can do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out the bypass route through JBLM. Can't even figure out where they would cross the Nisqually River. They are really poor at social media ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also just guessing here but I think we're going to want to highlight the portion with the 40 mph speed limit and the portion with/without positive train control. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you need it, but this Lidar data of the area is very detailed. It could be used to determine the height of the track above the Interstate, if nothing else. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis – this might be the best map in the media yet (Tacoma News Tribune) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is good enough to use for now. I can make some improvements. I'll see if I can make one with the detour route. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The JBLM Perimeter Road detour route is described here but it says "no longer viable", whatever that means. State Patrol twitter @wastatepatrol had the route too but never rescinded it AFAIK. Like I said, social media chaos. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll update the route map or create more updated versions with new routes if I can. In terms of sourcing, it's most defensible to stick only with the "official" routes offered by WSDOT rather than other suggestions by sources that some editors might call into question. Since it's not that easy to re-edit the image, they'd delete the entire map if they didn't like one of the sources used. But I'll see what I can do.Both of the maps I've done are pretty ugly; the detour map in particular is ugly as doggy doo doo. I need to improve my ability to blend the GIS data with the city limits, roads, rail lines, and other boundary data so I can make it nicer. And use less lame looking arrows. Hopefully I'll be done by today? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Driver?
Who was the Driver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.227.186 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Info box numbers don't match local sources
Local media is saying that there was only 5 crew on board and. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"... it had five crew membes and 80 passnegers when it derailed." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ref format
WP:CITEVAR asks for consensus to move refs. Glrx (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing from harvtxt to parenthetical style is a change in citation style which the WP:CITEVAR guideline (not policy) suggests you should seek consensus for. This is spelled out clearly by example: "When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's;"Using the list-defined references feature of the standard reflist template is not a change in major citation styles. It's exactly the same citation style, with a more efficient means of organizing the behind-the-scenes wiki markup. It doesn't force subsequent editors to do anything different: if they continue to add edits using the same methods they were using here yesterday, the article looks exactly the same.I understand why you might think the Arbcom ruling of 2006 and the CITEVAR guidelines might be prohibiting the changes I made, but you need to read this stuff more carefully before you start reverting, and reverting and reverting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should read it again, Dennis. When an article is already consistent, avoid...changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. Don't edit war over this. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * e/c
 * Re spelled out clearly: Citing_sources third bullet says;
 * changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist
 * I understand that there can be advantages to keeping the ref definitions in one place, but there are also disadvantages when refs are being added and removed. Also, putting the ref defs out of line is not the common practice; more editors are used to putting them inline.
 * Glrx (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, this would apply if there were serious style changes, but I haven't done that. Simply adding some list defined refs is not a change in style in an article that already uses ref names. When you say "more editors are putting them inline", you imply that somehow subsequent editors won't be able to continue editing as usual after I move some of them down to the reflist template. This is not so. As I said, editors don't need to do anything different. List defined refs are backward compatible with the fully inline version. Anyone can add more content in the usual way and everything is fine. Subsequent cleanup can move those refs down to the bottom too, or they can be left where they are with no noticeable difference. If list defined refs were not backward compatible, you'd have a point.This article was already using the to cite the same sources multiple times, so the disadvantages of having to hunt for a ref to edit it already existed. Editors are already being asked to use ref=Blah to figure out where the source reference is. The only change I made was that for at least some of them, they don't have to hunt through the entire article to figure out where they're hiding. They're all right there in one place. By having every inline ref a short   tag rather than the entire citation template, we have fewer punctuation errors when the ref is in the middle of a sentence or other complex consent. It's nothing but an improvement, and it doesn't introduce any confusion that wasn't already there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference style should be kept as it was originally started. No good reason to change. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEATH banner
This project is definitely within the scope of the Death project, because it is about a transport incident in which people were killed. Removing the banner due to disliking the design of it is ludicrous and unjustified. A skull is an extremely relevant and appropriate image to have on the death banner. The banner is nested, so you can't even see the skulls unless you choose to expand it. Claiming it's a BLP vio to have the banner here is also ridiculous. If you have a suggestion about changing the design of it, this isn't the place to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article may be within the scope of that project. That is not a reason to put a photograph of a human skull on the page to which we refer involved parties wishing to raise an issue or supply new information - an image which is displayed every time the page loads, before the banners are collapsed. I question whether a project with only 50 members - some inactive for years - has the right to impose these inappropriate images on the talk pages pages of articles such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The aspersions you cast on this important WikiProject are not justified, but that's neither here nor there. I submitted a request over at Template talk:WikiProject Death requesting that they add a  flag on the template so that the skull does not appear, just for the sake of avoiding unnecessary controversy. The WikiProject Death banner very much belongs on this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which aspersions would they be? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not merely that this article may be within the scope of the Death project - it absolutely definitely without a shadow of a doubt is. The skull is part of the banner. People who are reading about a fatal disaster will not be so ludicrously thin-skinned to be horrified by the sight of a picture of a clean skull. The image is not inappropriate - it is extremely appropriate and relevant - what image should be on the death banner instead? How many members the project has or how active they are is irrelevant to the fact that its banner belongs on this talk page. There's no controversy - altering a banner in one case because a tiny number of editors have ludicrous objections to it isn't reasonable. Jim Michael (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all good now. Skull is gone, no reason to continue worrying about this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't the articles of all dead people need to have the death banner added to the Talk page? Aren't they all equally well qualified to be candidates? Presumably includes all dead pirates? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:BEANS. Or discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. I can tell you there are some 52 Featured Articles that are in the scope of WP Death, including disasters like Sinking of the RMS Titanic or Senghenydd colliery disaster. It sounds like you really object to WikiProject Death itself. The place to raise that issue is over at the WikiProject Council. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Beans are people too, you know. (Especially with a nice Chianti). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How ridiculous to a remove a picture from a banner on the basis that people who are squeamish and excessively sensitive about death would choose to read the talk page of an article about a fatal disaster! WP is not censored - we include pictures of Muhammad (despite thousands of people angrily demanding they all be removed) and human genitalia. Jim Michael (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but who cares? The only purpose of the talk page banner is to have members of the Death project tracking this article and including it in relevant navboxes or in project-wide changes in the way death/deaths are handled in articles. We put logo icons on everything because we like them, but they are not literally necessary for a project to do its work. The Death project actually added the  flag to the template over a year ago because the project members are happy to not show the skull if anybody is going to complain about it. If they can all let it go, you can too. The banner is where it needs to be and we all have bigger fish to fry.  If it really bothers you, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death and propose that the project agree to remove   from the template, and insist on letting their freak flag fly all the time. If they agree, the rotting corpse of the skull debate will rise from the fetid earth and challenge all the living to face it if they dare, and then the battle is joined. If not, let it stay dead and buried.Anybody object to adding Archive top/Archive bottom tags to this thread? Going once...  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fish are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. where can I get one of those flags? thanks.
 * You had to ask? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How ridiculous to ascribe false motives to other editors. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Instant Periodicals! Just-add-water Research!
I'm noting we have us here an Atlntic (online) article that seems depressingly up to date....and that's a bad thing, here. Magazines and journals get much of what heft they have from the delay between the event and publication, allowing research and reflection, instead of the vague "this looks like it could be..." hand-waving in the David Graham piece used as a reference here. Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you are saying but I will add that we should be careful of referencing that is potentially based on this article. I've seen phrases in reputable newspapers that sound familiar to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the David Graham article is an off-the-cuff, premature, op-edish piece with insufficient weight to establish fact, and we should know better than to use it. I Say take it out. Anmccaff (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Incident on original route
If the incident on the original route is scarcely relevant, why are we including it here? epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dunno if it is "scarcely relevant", the route is different, but the equipment and operators are not, and it suggests, but does not prove, a casual approach to speed restrictions.  Personally, I'd keep it off all the pages barring some decent, authoritative coverage linking it, though.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody thought it was important enough to be in the article. I thought it was not relevant enough to be in the Background section and moved it down. Akld guy (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's the case that they are only tangentially related, should I remove it? Or maybe we could place it into the "Reactions" section, with a note that someone made comparisons between the two incidents. epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has already been discussed. See "Remove Background section" above (last few comments). The rationale for keeping it was that it might become significant if the cause in this incident was also speeding. Akld guy (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This violates WP:SYNTH. It's a textbook example of WP:FRANKIE. I haven't seen a source that connects the two. It's exactly the same as the question of Infowars saying it's related to Antifa, or Trump saying it's related to infrastructure spending (and the Middle East?). We ignore the antifa thing because the sources are weak. Trump's basically inane comments are included because our sources include them.All mention of the July accident, in any section, should be removed unless good quality sources include it in their reporting on the December accident. Same principle in every case: be consistent with what our sources give us. Show me 1+ high quality sources that do say that accident is relevant -- or potentially relevant -- to that accident, and I will do a 180 and support including it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we then remove the following from See also?
 * List of accidents on Amtrak
 * List of American railroad accidents
 * List of rail accidents (2010–present) Akld guy (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but we can definitely move the July accident to one of the three. Or all three. If the crash is notable, I'm guessing it will have its article anyway. epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And this incident is obviosly a member of the sets that make up each of those lists. We typically have such lists in see also sections. See WP:SEEALSO and WP:NAVLIST. If hypothetically we had a strong need for 5 or 10 other wikilinks in our see also section and it was becoming cumbersome, some of the first ones I'd throw overboard would be these lists. But we don't so we shouldn't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Comparison to incident on original route" section is irrelevant to this article and violates WP:SYNTH but is, in a strong sense, also a form of WP:COATRACK. It needs to be removed. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis, you said "show me" so here: has a fairly complete analysis of Kelso 1993, California 2003, Philadelphia 2015, and Steilacoom 2017. It is an op-ed which is hugely discounted for sourcing, but obvious that some people think that comparisons to other Amtrak incidents are relevant. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo. I think you could add these to that: . To repeat what I said, if our sources are treating A nd B as relevant, than A and B belong in the same article. WP:SYNTH and WP:DBTF are about editors making conclusions or making connections not present in sources. But as Bri has shown, the connection is present.Sources alone are sufficient justification, but the sources also give us reasons why there is a connection, including: the proximity of the derailments create political pressure for systemic change, or that the two events stem from Amtrak's allegedly poor safety culture. Note that the existence of political pressure or political momentum, or opinions about safety culture, are subjective and require WP:INTEXT attribution. Definitely avoid WP:WEASEL words and passive voice such as "Amtrack was criticized for..." or "Some say that..." or "Critisisms exist that...". Say "X said Y has poor safety culture" or "X said political pressure for action stems from ..."Now we have justification for including the July crash. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why Wikipedia has ideas like "not news" and "too soon" floating around. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it happened yesterday or 300 years ago. If today we see zero sources saying blue whales influenced the wreck of the Whydah Gally, then the article shouldn't mention whales. If tomorrow an editor presents sources that show a connection, then the whale angle deserves proportionate weight. WP:NOTNEWS says we don't write in a news style, and we don't create articles about current events unless they have historical significance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

National media
Article raters should consider that this was the above-the-fold half page picture story in the December 19 print editions of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post ran an above-the-fold story with a quarter page image. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Pageviews
Just in case you're not familiar, you can add Template:Annual readership to talk pages, too. I've added this for most of the Good articles I've promoted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Translations
Article has been fully translated to Spanish and French. Other versions exist in Farsi and German.