Talk:Amritsar train disaster

Please note varying spelling of location
The spelling for the name of the location of the incident varies according to the media house. The spelling varies Jaura, Joda, Jodha... Phatak (crossing).... all these refer to the same location and are similar sounding, but if this can somehow be mentioned in the article... Joda is used the most it seems in online news articles and is currently what the wiki article uses, according to The Hindu cite. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Role of Indian Railways in the Amritsar Train Disaster
The Indian Railways has termed the disaster as a trespass on its tracks. But the fact is Indian Railways has a major role to play in the occurrence of this disaster. The railways is feeling the guilt. This can be seen in the recent news item published in the Dainik Jagran which states that the top management of Indian railways has issued guidelines to its Loco pilots, Guards, Station masters, Gang-men, Gate-men and all other staff of Indian railways to raise immediate warnings should they perceive that there is crowd on the tracks. The loco pilots and Guards have been issued directions that they must pass their train at very slow speeds and continuous horn sounding while passing through densely populated areas. This shows that it was a clear fault of the Indian Railways due to which the disaster happened. Dushera has been celebrated since antiquity. The railway authorities are well aware that Dushera evening is the busiest evening in India in any year. Still they ran their train at full speed through the middle of the town.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018
The spelling of Navjot is wrong in the "Response" section of the page. It is written as Navkot whereas the true spelling is Navjot. Buntupsc (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hindsight Bias in Wikipedia Article?
Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:F496:B1F5:C7B7:E27D (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)