Talk:2017 Washington train derailment/Archive 3

Not PTC? Not ATC?
The article in the Derailment section, states that PTC was not installed on that route. But it does not refer to ATC, whether it was installed or not, or whether it was active or not. When we see events involving (American) train incidents, we often see reference to the fact that PTC (the newer system) was not installed. But, my understanding is that in most cases, ATC (the older system) would also have prevented the problem, had it been operational. These weren't new tracks, it was merely a new route for a specific Amtrak line. Presumably some sort of automatic system was already installed? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, there is no mention of Automatic train control. Do you have any source that shows its status relevant to this accident? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a Google search for 'washington train derailment atc', and the first relevant result referring to ATC was  http://katu.com/news/investigators/positive-train-control-not-ready-on-any-amtrak-cascades-trains-still-in-works-on-trimet  ;  another result was somewhere inside:   http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/12/19-analysis-early-observations-on-the-amtrak-cascades-derailment  ;  http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/12/18-amtrak-cascades-train-derails-onto-washington-highway    2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so the first source says this;
 * "In 2008, York said TriMet installed a system called automatic train control (ATC) on the WES line that performs a similar function around curves and bridges.
 * "ATC, along with our cab signal system effectively ensures an accident similar to the recent over-speed derailment is extremely unlikely to happen," York explained. "The cab signal system automatically limits speeds in most locations."
 * And the second source says this:
 * "ATC is an overlay system to cab signals. They don't exist on this line, therefore no ATC possible. The lack of PTC is not Amtrak's fault; it must be installed first by the owner road, which in this case is either BNSF or UP, not sure which."
 * But that second one is just a public chat board and so is not usable here. Does anyone else have anything relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that ATC would be installed on this section of track, since it has been out of use for some time. There is little incentive to install an older system when the newer system is available. ATC is far more common on the East Coast, especially the NEC. It is true that wayside PTC equipment is the responsibility of the operating RR (who owns the tracks), but it is the responsibility of the owner of the locomotive to install the onboard equipment, which is what actually does the stopping. Closetsingle (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't see the sense in your comment. First sentence:  Does ATC hardware simply rust, or melt away, when it's not used?  And how do you know it was "out of use for some time"?  Cite some source for this.  Second sentence:  I am not suggesting that they failed to install the ATC system:  It was either there, or not there.  These were old tracks.  As far as I know, they were used previously.  And it isn't clear that PTC was "available".  In so many of these accidents, PTC wasn't actually available; it might have been years away from installation.  You need to clarify what you meant.   2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, and Discuss): Someone is trying to remove references to Benjamin Gran, who died in the accident.
An editor is failing to follow the WP policy: WP:BRD. He started, by deleting (reverting) a reference to one of the three people who died on this accident. That sounds relevant. He restored, without engaging in any sort of discussion on this Talk Page. My position is that in an accident where only three people died, and two of them are specifically mentioned, there is nothing wrong with mentioning the third. In fact, do a Google Search for Benjamin Gran, and you see at least hundreds of relevant references. There is nothing wrong, too, with naming the other victims and why they were there. (Rail fans, apparently.)    2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No reference was removed. Uncited negative information about a recently-deceased person that had nothing to do with the accident was correctly reverted.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I will make it explicit: I am accusing both SounderBruce and SarekofVulcan of "tag-teaming" the removal of correct and relevant material in the article. Moreover, both of them refuse and fail to use this Talk page to discuss the issue, a serious violation of WP:BRD.  On his Talk page, SarekofVulcan falsely invoked WP:BLP, despite the fact that the person mentioned, Benjamin Gran, is now dead.  While a few exceptions exist that would apply WP:BLP, the material that was previously present was neither "contentious" nor "questionable".  Benjamin Gran was neither a suicide, nor was he alleged to have done anything to cause or exacerbate the rail accident in question.  WP:BLP simply doesn't apply. SarekofVulcan seems to be simply inventing a rule that doesn't exist:  He said, "Uncited negative information about a recently-deceased person that had nothing to do with the accident was correctly reverted."   If his objection is that there was no reference given, he should say so and not object when somebody returns it with a reference.   2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will cite a couple of examples about WP'S handling of victims of transportation accidents. First,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 cites two victims,  San Diego "Chargers running back Rodney Culver and his wife   and Songwriter and musician Walter Hyatt", and in fact lists them all through a CNN reference.  And in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment, the article not only names eight victims killed, but in fact names their employers and institutions they were associated with.   (facts which SarekofVulcan would call "that had nothing to do with the accident".)  Likewise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hoboken_train_crash  , which identified the one death as  "attorney Fabiola Bittar de Kroon, 34, a married mother of one and native of Brazil who had recently moved to Hoboken.[14][15] The majority of those injured were passengers on the crashed train.[13".   Evidently, WP has a policy completely consistent with identifying and describing not only the victims, but facts as simple as seemingly unrelated as those.   I suggest that the study of this  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_(2010%E2%80%93present)  will show clearly that the identity and other information about victims is routinely published in WP.   2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In none of those cases did an editor go out of their way to mention a prior conviction for something that had nothing to do with the accident. See WP:COATRACK. Also, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL, for arguments on why the other victims shouldn't be named. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to people that are recently deceased. Also WP:BLP1E can be applied in these situations - persons not notable outside of the event in question are generally not named, unless a strong reason can be given to name them. In this case, I cannot see a strong reason to name non-Wikinotable victims. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD-NOT gives several reasons why that optional best-practice advice is inapplicable here. Even if it was, this was the edit that broke with the BRD advice, which repeatedly says "BRD is never a reason for reverting." BRD also says that if you do revert, you need to give good reasons, and "You need to follow WP: BRD" is not a good reason. After your addition was reverted the first time, you should have started talking, not reverted again. You reverted twice before discussing at all.But this edit is such a blatant WP:BLP violation that BRD is irrelevant. The policy says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Even if it's true, and even if it were appropriate to mention unconnected convictions of the accident victims, it still must have a citation. Its not good enough that citations exist out there somewhere; they must be in the article. Unsourced negative information must be removed even if you have already reverted more than three times in 24 hours -- the three revert rule doesn't apply to unsourced controversial claims about a living/recently deceased person.If you're a new editor, it's not a good idea to start with controversial topics and potentially defamatory material. Play it safe and learn the ropes on subject that are not so risky, and where there is more room for error. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is hard to know where to start with your comment! The first "revert" was the removal of the reference to Benjamin Gran.  I did not notice it until quite recently.  Also, you cited WP:BLP as violated, but you didn't explain why citing a dead victim was relevant.  I pointed out that WP:BLP only applied to "recently dead" people under certain, limited circumstances, none applicable here.  (I already addressed that issue, above.)  Yes, it needed a reference, of which there appear to be hundreds of options available, if you look by Google search.  Assuming that nobody further violates WP:BRD, I can attempt to add a reference.  But anyone else can do that too.  You say, "unsourced negative information":  Where does that "negative" reference come from?  And remember, you said UNsourced.  Does that mean you have no objection if the material is sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c2:4e02:3020:4146:2231:c4f1:8e76  (talk • contribs) 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are able to understand what "even if" means. I strongly recommend you quit while you're ahead. The "clueless noob" act is wearing thin, and it's looking a lot like an old hand (probably blocked) with a grudge, trying to make a point with sophistry and wikilawyering. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the one at fault here. I am not the one who deleted accurate information.  It certainly looks like YOU are threatening ME in this matter.  I agreed to the good idea of referencing the information, but others incorrectly insisted that WP:BLP applied; but on my challenge, they (and you) couldn't explain why.  2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merely citing a policy is merely an invitation to others to try to make a connection. You didn't make a connection.  I will quote from the citation you made:  "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia."   I did nothing that"disrupts progress".  I merely restored material which somebody else had deleted.  Key words:  "BUILDING the encyclopedia".  Not "TEARING DOWN the encyclopedia".  Unless there was a GOOD reason to remove the material (rather than adding a useful citation) you cannot properly say that anything I did was "disruptive".    Also, you cited WP:COATRACK above.  I refer you to  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting   which clearly lists the names of the eight students killed.   If COATRACK didn't apply there, why here?  You need to stop treating WP as if it was the Bible:  It's so long, that anybody can always find contents which you can use to support anything you want.   2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t blame anyone for thinking that if if’s OK on one article then it’s probably OK on another. But Wikipedia is quite large, and one of the consequences of what you mention, that it’s a work in progress that can’t be expected to be perfect if is going to grow, is that many articles are poor examples. You can’t expect an editor who is fixing a problem on one article to be responsible for the same problems on other articles. We fix problems in increments, one article at a time. WP:Other stuff exists covers this in great detail. You could hold up WP:Featured articles as examples to emulate, since those have broad consensus establishing that they do meet all the policies and guidelines. The Santa Fe article is brand new and is changing by the minute. The other articles you mentioned, besides not being Featured Articles, are many years ago and clearly not about victims who are recently deceased, so the BLP rules don’t apply. In addition, they only mention ordinary background information like occupation or education, not extremely negative things like a felony conviction. On top of all that, merely naming the crime without any mitigating factors (as attested by the sentencing judge) is not neutral. But then, going into all details about the crash victim’s mental health, or taking responsibility for the crime or how many years ago they completed their sentence veers far off topic from a train derailment. If you can’t do it justice in a few words, best not mention it at all, since it adds nothing to our understanding of the train crash. It’s true WP:Editing policy says flawed additions should be kept on a normal article so the encyclopedia can grow. But it also says BLPs are the exception. The standards are much more strict. How long before a victim is no longer “recently deceased” and the living persons policy no longer applies? That depends on consensus. The consensus here is that it’s too soon. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You continue to fail to explain why WP:BLP applies. These victims are dead.  While there are some, rare exceptions to BLP, they do not apply here.  And above, you are refering to "extremely negative things like a felony conviction".  Where does that distinction come from?  From personal bias?  There is simply no reason to believe that the listing of the names and descriptions of three passenger-victims of this train constitutes a "flawed addition".  Why did you imply this?  And the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment lists every fatality, and that article is nearly 3 year older than this one.  Can you show any resistance to naming those names in that article?   I think the answer is quite simple:  You simply don't WANT this specific article to name one specific fatality, and you (or others) are inventing just about every excuse to take this reference out.    2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)