Talk:SNCF

Link
Would like to add a link to the wiki page on Yellow train.Any objections?
 * Go for it dude... 68.39.174.238 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Access denied
The link to "Collection of Google Earth locations of SNCF stations" give me an "access denied", so I think that that link have to be removed. JanusDC (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

History
What is in this article is interesting, but I came to this page to find some history of the SNCF - when was it formed, why, did it replace any previously exisiting private railway companies? It would be good if someone who knows a little of the history could add it to the article. 86.182.91.130 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tom Fort,

La SNCF, qui a exprimé ses regrets pour sa part de responsabilité dans la Shoah, doit "garder la tête haute" parce qu'elle avait une "responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité" dans le transport des déportés, a estimé jeudi l'avocat Serge Klarsfeld. "Je trouve que les attaques dont la SNCF a été l'objet sont injustes", a commenté le président de l'association des fils et filles de déportés juifs de France, en marge de l'inauguration à Orléans d'un musée à la mémoire des déportés des camps d'internement du Loiret. "La SNCF ne pouvait pas escamoter les trains, les rails, ni les cheminots", a-t-il ajouté. "Il y avait une responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité", a-t-il poursuivi, soulignant que la société avait été réquisitionnée pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale et qu'elle n'avait "jamais démarché le gouvernement de Vichy pour transporter des juifs". Selon M. Klarsfeld, "les sacrifices de beaucoup de cheminots qui étaient dans la Résistance justifient que la SNCF garde la tête haute, qu'elle ne courbe pas la tête à la suite des pressions (liées aux) intérêts commerciaux puisqu'en ce moment la SNCF essaie d'obtenir des contrats aux Etats-Unis". "Aux Etats-Unis les gens ont une vision très simpliste de ce qui s'est passé en France, ils assimilent la population française aux dirigeants de Vichy", a poursuivi l'avocat de la cause des déportés en France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.106.189 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at this article: Thanks. JamaUtil (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To provide even more response, the referenced column is not notable. It is just an opinion piece.  If that piece uncovers some unusual fact, that would be worth covering but I'm afraid my language skills are not good enough to decipher anything unusual from this piece.  Try taking a smaller piece that says something notable about SNCF.  The piece appears to mostly just bring up the same old arguments, that is why I provided this link.  I think it does a good job describing the newest information on the subject. JamaUtil (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear JamaUtil,
 * I don't quite understand your actions. The link you mention exactly relates the point of view of the lawyer. In addition, you propose to extract part of the information from that lawyer's message in order to make more encyclopedic, which I understand. What I do not understand though, is why not do it yourself instead of just removing directly the concerned paragraph. Your actions seem to me as a mix between vandalism and laziness. I hope I am mistaken. That said, I will now modify the paragraph that was previously written and will hope you do not bluntly remove it.
 * Thank you in advance, Xionbox (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your corrections, your sources and expansions helped a lot. I was able to remove two dead links and replace the sources with those that you had added.  I removed the point of view of the lawyer, and the according to for the BBC article.  I'm just trying to keep facts in this article.  Items like a donation, a public acknowledgment of regret, and research facts by historians are definitely useful, thanks for adding these. JamaUtil (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad I could help. However, I do think the according to is necessary because there is no SNCF source which clearly state that these measures are linked to the contracts in the US. In fact, for the past five to ten years, the SNCF has be very involved in the Shoah memory (I don't have any sources right now, except mine: I've been living in France for more than twenty years and have been, of course, following the national news). In addition, the Figaro source provided in the article (reference named "figaro-shoah-regrets") states the following: Depuis plusieurs mois, la SNCF tente de trouver une issue à cette menace américaine, prise entre deux impératifs : ne pas donner le sentiment que son action répond à un seul opportunisme commercial tout en marquant sa volonté de ne pas occulter le passé., which means: For several months, the SNCF has been trying to find an exit to this American threat [attacks on the Shoah implication] and is currently stuck between two contradicting opinions: not give signals proving their actions are only commercially opportunistic [directly linked to the US contracts] while showing their wish to not erase the past. Finally, I also think the fact that SNCF workers sabotaged their own railroad tracks is an important fact in the implication of the company during World War II. Xionbox (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read that text closely. The author is saying that SNCF is trying to figure out a way to make it look like these comments have nothing to do with American contracts.  The implication (and the byline of the article) is that these recent apologies ARE DIRECTLY related to the American contracts, SNCF just doesn't want to make it look that way.  The BBC and this article have both reached this exact same conclusion.  It's not really our place (as an encyclopedia) to speculate whether or not this consensus is correct. JamaUtil (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I take this last sentence back, I forgot it was already mentioned in the article. Xionbox (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one more source which proves that the SNCF's public regrets are not directly linked to the contracts in the US. Xionbox (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if I have the translation wrong, but the subtitle of that article says the public regrets ARE DIRECTLY linked to the contracts. The byline says, "Dans l'espoir de décrocher de juteux contrats aux Etats-Unis, la SNCF a reconnu son rôle dans la déportation des Juifs."  Which Google believes translates to, "In hopes of getting lucrative contracts in the United States, the SNCF has acknowledged his role in deporting Jews."  Am I misunderstanding the meaning of this text?  JamaUtil (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

76,000 vs 77,000
I used 77,00 because the text in this article is "transported nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims from France to Nazi camps, according to historians." I think that is very clear writing and that is how I phrased that opening paragraph as well. I also think that's the better number to include because it more accurately counts all victims. JamaUtil (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to see we have reached a consensus. Yes, the seventy-seven thousand number seems to be correct I misread part of the article I cited yesterday: out of these 77k, almost 76k were French. I agree that the assertions of authors are not usually cited in Wikipedia, but it is a personal point of view of the author (and supported by the BBC as it was published) since there isn't any official document related to that. In addition, SNCF opened its archives in 1996 for the French to show its acts were mandatory under German orders. Xionbox (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, almost a consensus. I would still like to know if this is the correct translation, the subtitle of that article you added says the SNCF public regrets ARE DIRECTLY linked to the contracts.  The byline says, "Dans l'espoir de décrocher de juteux contrats aux Etats-Unis, la SNCF a reconnu son rôle dans la déportation des Juifs."  Which Google believes translates to, "In hopes of getting lucrative contracts in the United States, the SNCF has acknowledged his role in deporting Jews."  Isn't that exactly what the BBC reporter claimed as well? JamaUtil (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't had the time to reedit this article tonight, but will add, once more, the fact that the SNCF opened its archives in 1996 and has been apologizing for its acts in 2000 as stated in |this document on page 2: SNCF maintains these documents in its historic archives, which have been open and accessible to the public since 1996 . Then on page 4: SNCF has made solemn public statements of acknowledgment and regret since 2000. The most recent statement was made by CEO Guillaume Pepy in November 2010. There is another precision which is of interest: As a result over 600 workers were executed by the Germans, and over 1,200 French railroad workers were deported on French trains to German camps. (page 3). That would be great if you could add these; if not, I'll add this information tomorrow my-self. Xionbox (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is useful information, but it needs to come from a third-party source (not SNCF). We need to find someone else who recognizes that these apologies aren't really the first apologies by SNCF. So far, every source is reporting the November event as the first expression of sorrow, and the January event as the first public apology.  Maybe you can find an article that documents the opening of the archives in 1996 or can find an article about these apologies in 2000, but for the current third-party sources are treating these more recent events as notable and that is why they're in Wikipedia. JamaUtil (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust history edits
User Eraserhead1 has twice reverted edits concerning the Holocaust history section. The deleted material is valid, relevant, sourced, and is certainly not vandalism - as he claimed when he first reverted it. The material consists of the comments and opinion of Jewish Holocaust activists, French historians, a railroad union, a railroad newsreporter, and the Washington Post (concerning SNCF's Maryland contracting story) - all of whom are valid sources. These sources are also all valid third-party sources and are all mainstream (non-fringe group) opinions or commentary. In fact, one of the sources cited was already used in other sections of the article prior to my edits: "Baume, Maïa De La (2011-01-25). "French Railway, S.N.C.F., Apologizes to Holocaust Victims". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/europe/26france.html." Therefore, I have no idea why they should not be included in this article.

Eraserhead1's claimed reason for his first instance of deletion was vandalism, which is clearly not the case. He did not state a reason for his second instance of deletion. Therefore, I believe that this information was removed inappropriately and should be placed back into the article. I will do so if no valid reasons are given here. Thanks.

72.80.200.93 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Eraserhead1 sent me a brief note saying that he feels this is undue weight. I cannot agree with that because all the sources are mainstream, non-fringe, and third-party sources. Also, there were quite a few such sources included, representing many people and groups in almost every way imaginable - American (such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post) and French (CGT union), Jewish (such as Arno Klarsfeld and Jacques Fredl) and non-Jewish, railroad-specific (Mass Transit Magazine and Don Phillips) and general news (the Washington Post and New York Times). I find this hard to see how this is undue weight in any way. Also, if the majority of valid and relevant sources on this topic make statements that one person (Eraserhead1) does not appear to approve of, this does not automatically mean that undue weight has been given. This is because on some topics, the majority of such sources may have one general perspective or even one opinion. Indeed, Eraserhead1 also graciously linked me to the wikipedia undue weight page. However, that very same page states: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". I believe that the sources I added (in combination with the rest of the article, which is the way I meant it to be read) do represent the majority of the reliable sources on this topic. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. However, as always, Eraserhead1 (and anyone else) please do feel free to add other relevant, validly-sourced material with other points-of-view to this topic. Wikipedia is always a collaborative effort. Again, thank you all very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.200.93 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits were a bit excessive. Try focusing just on SNCF's WWII actions. Do any of your sources say anything new about those actions?  There is nice coverage of how executives/lawmakers/courts have reacted to SNCF's actions, but I think it makes sense to avoid covering the reactions to how executives/lawmakers/courts have reacted to SNCF's actions, which is what many of your sources are doing.  Maybe try incorporating your edits in small amounts in the existing text?  JamaUtil (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably it wasn't my greatest ever revert, but 4000 extra characters seemed more than a bit much. If you want to add a little more or add more sources go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this may be a matter of headings as much as anything else. The material Eraserhead1 removed hardly adds to the description of what happened during WWII, but it is relevant to the current SNCF and its operating plans. I created a new heading to separate what happened during WWII from the subsequent corporate, political and legal developments. I cleaned up the previous material in the process. I also added under the old heading a bit of context about the SNCF and the Resistance, to attenuate the over-representation of the Holocaust issue. I will try to return later to the previous WWII specifics, some of which are also out of context in the current version.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like how you structured this. JamaUtil (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again you're going a little overboard with your edits. Make sure you cite the specific article you are using, your citation of  made much of your work difficult to follow.  Your broad restructuring (which was very different from your Jan. 4th edits, are you one person?) was also far outside of the consensus that has been reached, as we can still find no third-party source from 1996 that indicates that SNCF opened its records to the public (a 2011 opinion piece that simply claims this is not adequate).  Thanks for your hard work on this article. Perhaps you should try establishing consensus on the talk page before editing again.  Note that much of the text, such as "SNCF transported nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims from France to Nazi death camps" are paraphrased directly from high quality sources.  Why would we remove this information.  JamaUtil (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The "once again" tells me you have no follow-through. You are making up a consensus that does not exist. The article as you are writing is weak and biased in only espousing sources that are superficial and biased, such as the Guardian. So now a one- columner in the Guardian takes precedence over Zuccotti's exquisite multi-year study. You cannot object to sources such as this just because you don't get them, or because you may not be able to read the more authoritative French-language sources, does not give you authority over the contents or the consensus. For example, it is a plain fallacy, well established in the sources I listed, that the SNCF transported people all the way to Auschwitz etc.; it transported them to the German border, where the Reichsbahn took over direction of the trains. I would not expect the WaPo to know this, and perhaps I should not expect JamaUtil to either, but that's history. Just like it was a fallacy that the Lipietz were deported; and just like it is still absurd to hide the fact that they were freed from Drancy. If you want to dig into the article, make it from authoritative sources, not from tabloid material and with non-NPOV blinders.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this is the second time you've tried to add this, let me mention that the fact that SNCF does business with Israel has no bearing on its WWII activities or responses to its activities. I really don't know what else to say about this, I can't imagine how such a comparison could be drawn.  That Phillips attempts this (without explanation) shows real weakness in that opinion column, it really undermines his credibility. JamaUtil (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you are wrong about the editor, and thus inadvertently supposing that you represent the consensus. Why don't you acknowledge that you are in the minority and off consensus.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To JamaUtil: The fact that SNCF does significant business with Israel is absolutely relevent to SNCF's Holocaust-era business activities as Israel is a nation composed largely of former European Jews who reestablished their own nation in 1948 largely in response to the horrors of the Holocaust. I really cannot see how can argue otherwise. In fact, reliable third-party sources (which you removed or edited without explanation) Don Phillips and the Washington Post have made this exact point. I will put this back in unless a valid is given for its removal. Thank you.

72.80.207.127 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to know what consensus is, I and all other wikipedia editors, are simply documenting facts based on reliable third-party sources. Non-opinion pieces are more reliable than opinion pieces, and they have formed a stable section on WWII history over the past year that I think is fair on both sides.  Thank you for your help with this, I really appreciate it. JamaUtil (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC).


 * To JamalUtil: You have repeatedly removed many facts, which were documented with reliable third-party sources, such as Washington Post and any discussion of the Maryland contracts. Those facts are definitely relevant here because the dispute over that contract concerns SNCF World War II responsibility - which is exactly what this section of this wikiarticle is about). You claimed that a newsreporter's (Don Phillips) column is not a valid source to report on those Maryland events, and is valid only as a source of his opinion. I challenge that - I have never heard anyone else claim this. A newsreporter's column for a major third party source has to be as accurate as any other article he/she writes for that source. Just because he adds his opinion to the facts that he reports upon does not mean that those facts are no longer reliably-reported facts. Again, I will put those facts back unless a valid reason is given for their removal. Again, if you have such a reason please speak up. Thank you.

72.80.207.127 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not "simply documenting facts based on reliable third-party sources". You are selectively, and hence in a non-NPOV manner, editing out historical research on a history topic and replacing them with weakly informed and occasionally biased daily news sources. I trust you mean well, but you are simply doing a disservice to the article and to the encyclopedia. And, you are now saying that you don't "pretend to know what consensus is", but then you talk about "establishing consensus". Sorry, but that is not serious wiki-ing on your part.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now JamaUtil is accusing me of making up research. This is plainly weird. Just read the links and wikipedia itself, and stop obstructing please, JamaUtil.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And now JamaUtil undoes six paragraphs, leaving four out and reducing one including by removing superior sources, and he claims to be adding. Please.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am removing WP:OR, which does not belong in Wikipedia. Your citation are original documents hosted on SNCF's America website.  When these documents have been covered by a 3rd party, that coverage will be included in Wikipedia.  Their hosting on the SNCF's website makes your usage suspect enough, but original research definitely has no place on Wikipedia.  JamaUtil (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. One source is double-linked to an SNCF website but is also in an independent source. The material is all sourced from third parties who have done the original research, and verifiable on wikipedia for that matter. Your edits are unjustified.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your citations are a real stretch. There is a reason why no 3rd party has cited the material you are citing.  I don't know why (as a Wikipedia editor, that is far outside my scope), but no newspaper attempts to make the assertions you are making.  That is an example of WP:OR, which does not belong in Wikipedia. That your location for this source is the SNCF is concerning. JamaUtil (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, JamalUtil claims that Truth or consequences is not citing valid, third-party sources, while at the same time, JamalUtil himself has repeatedly removed material with valid, third-party citations (see above in this talk page, and see the history of the main SNCF wikipage over the past 2 weeks). Please provide a valid reason for these removals, or I will put them back in. Thank you very much.

72.80.207.127 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For my part, should I cry or laugh? JamaUtil faults others for the pretended use of SNCF material; now, at [], JamaUtil cites... directly from the SNCF website, and a dead link at that! Previously, for the same argument, s/he inserted a citation to Ribeill (2006), which... makes the exact opposite point of what JamaUtil stated. Hypocrisy, incompetence, or sneaky vandalism? Beats me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Truth or consequences-2's references to him/herself in the third-person makes me think I have seen this editor before. In any case all editors should note that its not the "legal campaign" that has received criticism, but (as said in the NYTimes article), SNCF's apology. Many are saying that its unnecessary because of the inaccurate historical record. This is a nice way to focus the discussion because its trying to just look at SNCF's actions (which is what the article is all about), not reactions to actions. Thanks! JamaUtil (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no third-person issue here, just JamaUtil's baseless innuendo of puppetting. Thanks, JamaUtil!!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the sources, JamaUtil is plainly using a misleading and self-serving interpretation of WP:OR. Check WP:SECONDARY: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Ribeill and the others I cite are not reporting primary experience but rather are all sound secondary sources, professional historians published in expert journals and academic presses. Now: ": Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources." There is nothing wrong with these sources. Indeed, per WP:OR: "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses"; etc.; and, last, newspapers. Even then, notwithstanding JamaUtil's draw to them, confused and error-ridden newspaper sources hardly add; especially in history matters where the errors are obvious both from third-party sources and from existing wikipedia pages.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, lest this be misconstrued in light of the other string by 72.80.207.127: By "confused and error-ridden", as can be ascertained from the edit notes and the above, I specifically referred earlier to the Guardian.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

JamalUtil just reverted several edits concerning:1) SNCF's business with Israel and 2) the fact that SNCF opened all its files to public scrutiny in 1996 and 3) the fact the the SNCF-commissioned report of 1996 had acccess to all SNCF files. Concerning #1, the fact that SNCF does significant business with Israel is absolutely relevent to SNCF's Holocaust-era business activities as Israel is a nation composed largely of former European Jews who reestablished their own nation in 1948 largely in response to the horrors of the Holocaust. I really cannot see how one can argue otherwise. In fact, reliable third-party sources, such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post, have made this exact point


 * Concerning #2, JamalUtil's reason for removal was "opinion article from 2011 is not a reliable source for 1996 opening". This is simply not the case. The source was: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-will-run-marylands-trains/2011/05/20/AFbgTM9G_story.html. This is a reliable source because it is a major, third-party newspaper (the Washington Post). The fact that it is an opinion piece does not alter this fact - it is still reliable because even opinion pieces in major newspapers are held to the same standards of reliability by both the newspaper's editors (for facts - which is what this article was being used to cite - the fact that SNCF opened its archives in 1996) and by the public. Can anyone prove otherwise? The fact that this Washington Post article was written in 2011 also has no impact on its reliability on an event that happened in 1996. JamalUtil appears to be arguing that a newspaper article can only be reliable on an event that occurred at the same time that the article was written. This is also untrue. Also, in the past, JamalUtil himself asked for a source that states that SNCF opened its archives in 1996 on this same talk page (under the heading "76,000 vs 77,000" on February 4, 2011, when he challenged Xionbox to provide such a source: " Maybe you can find an article that documents the opening of the archives in 1996 or can find an article about these apologies in 2000...". Why is such a source now removed from the article by the very same editor?


 * Concerning # 3, the fact that SNCF gave the historian who wrote the 1996 report access to all period files is definitely relevant since SNCF has been accused of not fully accepting its guilt and not being forthcoming about its Holocaust role. The source is Don Phillips' article, a reliable third-party source.


 * It appears that much valid, properly-sourced, and relevant information has been removed. Please provide a valid reason for their removal. I will put them back in if no valid reason is given. Thank you all very much. Again, if JamalUtil (or anyone else) has valid reasons, please do speak up.

72.80.207.127 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

JamaUtil keeps changing a sentence to claim that half of the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit. This is unsourced, let alone unrealistic by all estimates of deaths in transit from this type of deportee. What Ribeill said is that half of them died in concentration camps, which does make sense. If you have a source to provide whereby half the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit, cite it; otherwise, desist. Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Original source (and text from previous edits) says half of them died while being deported. Please see the original source. JamaUtil (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Text from previous edits are yours. Source does not make this point. Find a citation or desist.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misunderstood the French, try adding a revised version of the block quotes to the paragraph of "Some have criticized the legal pressure and campaign against SNCF as uninformed and unfair", that might be a more appropriate place. JamaUtil (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good that you recognize one of your many errors on this article. The material about who controlled the SNCF during WWII, starting evidently with the Armistice terms, belongs at the start of the item about the SNCF's history during the period. There is no reason to position it elsewhere or to remove quotations. Besides, you are not engaging in cleaning this; you are engaging in wholesale removals and repeated inclusions of mistaken and ill-sourced material. Try to help edit and expand the article rather than vandalizing it. Thanks!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think the article should be about what did SNCF do. Why? Because that is what the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the register, and other 3rd party articles focus on.  They all say, "SNCF transported 77,0000...."  then they go on to say, "some believe criticism of SNCF is unfair/SNCF does not need to apologize because...".  This is how we have structured the article, and I am pleased that we match these high quality sources well. Thanks for your assistance. JamaUtil (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia page about the SNCF is about what it is, what happened to it, and what it did. You have been preventing progress of the article by sticking to a narrow vision, clear indication of non-NPOV intent, and by removing strongly sourced and relevant material. You keep referring to the weakest secondary sources and (barely) tertiary sources in this matter, and holding the article hostage to the point of vandalism to fit just these. Please respect the sources, respect history, respect wikipedia. Thanks!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

JamaUtil has taken out everything that was added to explicate the SNCF's history, including - as s/he agreed in this talk page new context material that is relevant for all readings of the article; except one sentence (their last revision is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNCF&oldid=470530426). This article is about the SNCF. If you have a rationale for excluding material about the SNCF that has been deemed properly sourced and relevant in this talk page, justify it by reference to the whole history. Otherwise I will edit what I presume to be WP:AGF but that borders on vandalism. Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think I've taught you something about Wikipedia. So you've probably learned about consensus, and it appears to have been reached. Not everything you want is in there, not everything I want is in there, but we have a fair assessment of SNCF's involvement in World War II quantified, so thank you for that. JamaUtil (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is most definitely not a consensus. There have been nearly 250 edits made to this SNCF page in the past 2 weeks, almost all of them about this topic - and this thread on this talk page is more than 20 posts long. Thanks.

72.80.207.127 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Your edits have harmed the article by removing a lot of relevant material and misrepresenting other material for your own non-neutral view. You have not justified the deletions, and so they will be reverted for the article's sake.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I do hope that you are learned a bit about the limitations of your own competence. We all have limitations as editors. I sure know I do; but I don't meddle lightly in articles whose material I lack the education and resources to edit.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These insults are really unnecessary. There is no need to insult each other. JamaUtil (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My interest is in the integrity of the article and of the encyclopedia, so I am focusing here on the contents even if this requires mentioning the actions of the editor who has been harming it. Feel free to join in augmenting and improving the article, and in addressing the talk issues in good faith. For that matter, I have yet to see any attention from JamaUtil to 72.80.200.93's argumented list.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Broken nose style"?
Doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic language. Applied to a picture of a Class 21000 electric locomotive in the "Business Scope" section. Unless SNCF calls it "broken nose", the term (or pseudonym as the case may be) should be excluded.

71.181.168.242 (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse SNCF with SNCF Group
One has to distinguish between the EPIC SNCF and the companies governed by private law which are the other part of the SNCF Group. --L.Willms (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the WWII section...
Hello to the Wikipedia community, whomever may be watching this page. My name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. My colleagues have been aware for some time that certain sections of this entry, particularly related to WWII, contain a number of inaccuracies, and reflects a distorted view of events. The specific sections are "World War II involvement" and "Reactions to World War II involvement".

It's a very difficult subject, as the section is undoubtedly correct that the SNCF had a role in the deportation of Jews and others from France to Germany and to Nazi camps. However, I'm afraid the presentation of facts in this entry is flawed. I understand that Wikipedia cares less about "what is true" than what reliable sources can verify, and my goal is to make specific points to explain why the current section is not aligned with the truth or with a full range of sources.

As it is a complicated and sensitive subject, I would very much appreciate it if Wikipedia's independent editors were moved not by the interest of SNCF but to historical accuracy to help me correct the record. I would like to begin with one relatively small issue. Right now the first section includes this statement:


 * SNCF commissioned French academics to write a history of SNCF activities during World War II in 1996, however no publicly available record of the document exists.

The last clause is not true. The source for this sentence, Trains, in fact says this:


 * You might be surprised to learn that today, SNCF and Israel are not exactly enemies. In fact, the French are quite active in working with the Israeli railway system. Further, although not required to do so, SNCF has repeatedly worked with Jewish groups to educate the current generation about the horrors of the war. SNCF even commissioned independent French academics to write a complete history of the SNCF and World War II, opening all files to the writers.

The link provided in the article does not work, which may partly explain the issue. An English summary of the source is here. This is just one small thing in a section with numerous problems, but a relatively simple one. Is there an editor here who is willing to make this change? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerry, reading the above link I understand the full report is available for viewing by appointment in Paris. Have I understood this correctly and is there a way of verifying this? Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The full French text appears to be online via http://39-45.sncf.com/content.php?id=2&deploy=2, and news stories confirm this report's existence. I've just made this change; thanks a lot for raising this Jerry. What other issues are you concerned about? Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A Comment: I’ve reversed the order of the paragraphs in the WWII section; I think the material flows better that way, but also I think it’d be better to start with a positive (as it were) than a negative. As to the rest, I have to say I’m a bit non-plussed by this. The material here takes up about 10% of the article, which feels like undue weight in a general article on a railway company. Is SNCF particularly at fault in this area? The subject isn’t mentioned at all in the page on Polish State Railways who (I’d have thought) were in the same position as SNCF during the war; nor (more pertinently) is there any mention on the DBB page. And the focus on recent court cases in the US looks to me like recentism. I also notice this was the subject of some fraught editing in January this year: If this really is a hot issue, then maybe this should be moved to its own "SNCF-Holocaust controversy" page, and just summarized and linked here. Then maybe both sides of the story can be explored in full. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there differing sides to the story? I'd note that SNCF's role in the murder of the French Jews is a big issue in France as well. There's no mention of Deutsche Bundesbahn's having a role in the Holocaust as it didn't exist at the time - the Deutsche Reichsbahn article appropriately covers this. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The different sides of the story I had in mind were to do with SNCF’s culpability; whether they were active collaborators or acting under duress; also whether their actions were markedly different from that of individuals and organizations in the rest of France, or in other occupied countries; also whether postwar examination had taken a different course with them than in other cases.
 * As for DBB not existing before 1949, it’s a bit of a cop-out; I don’t know that changing the name of the organization cuts off any lingering culpability. And the DBB has current issues (the fuss over the museum train, for example, or the 5 million euro payout they made recently) which aren’t mentioned on their page.
 * But my query was whether this page is the place to explore all that. Is the SNCF case notable in its own right (ie separate from any general treatments of culpability), and are we giving them equal treatment to similar examples in similar circumstances? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nick and Xyl, I'm glad you've both had a chance to look at the article and make some changes. Xyl, you rase an interesting point about the controversy being a separate matter from the rail company itself. I'm working on a longer response, and I will try to respond as quickly as I can, certainly it will be this week again. Best, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all who have expressed interest in this issue earlier this fall. It took longer than I expected to look into this situation, but I've now looked closely at the background on this article and I can tell what happened here.


 * This section has been the subject of several "edit wars" most recently in January 2012. The editor who prevailed seems to have adopted an antagonistic tone toward SNCF, but this editor has not been active on Wikipedia since August. Prior to January, the section had been better, although not perfect. I've also noticed that this topic is also covered (also not perfectly) in the France section of the Holocaust train article.


 * I suggest that this section be made shorter, as Xyl 54 recommends, and this section include a link to the other article. At a later point, the section of that article should be improved, but first I would like to focus here. I am interested in trying to write a new version based on reliable published sources, and present it here for review by other editors. If any editor is willing to review a new version, please let me know. I think I will have time to prepare this in the next week or two. Thanks again, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to review that. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

An arbitrary break
Thanks again, and my apologies about the length of time this has taken. I have had some assistance in researching and writing a new version of this section, and it is now ready. In the box is what I propose:

This new version seeks to accomplish a few key goals. First, to provide an accurate summary of key events involving SNCF during the war, including the transportation of Jews and other victims, with acknowledgment of the later controversies. Second, to provide an overview of SNCF under German occupation, with regard to infrastructure and damage sustained. Third, to provide details regarding individual SNCF employee efforts in the Resistance, and a casualty count. I should acknowledge that I think the current figure of 1,700 is incomplete, and I am working on additional research for that now. But 1,700 is widely-cited, and if I find a reliable source I will suggest it later.

Nearly all of this material has been in this article at one time or another, and most of the references used are in the article now. The biggest change is that topics of controversy from the 2000s, omitting all but a mention of the Lipietz case and resulting political controversy. It is my intention to provide a longer accounting of these events in the section Holocaust train, and I have listed that as "See also" in the new version. I would also suggest calling the section simply "World War II" as no further clarification is needed.

I am very interested to hear others' feedback. Please feel free to make edits if you like, and I will be watching this page closely. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While that's generally OK, I think that the fact that SNCF billed at least some of the victims needs to be noted given the long-term consequences of this. It would be interesting to note the casualties the SNCF suffered from the Allied air offensive prior to D-Day if figures are available. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I added the post above to the section; it seems well-cited and nobody has objected. I didn't remove the rest, which probably means some sorting-out needs to be done; but that's no reason to hold back a valid edit request. Of course, edit it, discuss it further, whatever... Shaz0t (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting the new paragraphs, Shaz0t. However, now the section is far more lengthy and some information is duplicated. My intention, as explained above, was for these new paragraphs to replace the previous sections, following the recent suggestion of Xyl 54.


 * As Xyl wrote in this discussion, on October 1: "The material here takes up about 10% of the article, which feels like undue weight in a general article on a railway company. ... I also notice this was the subject of some fraught editing in January this year: If this really is a hot issue, then maybe this should be moved to its own "SNCF-Holocaust controversy" page, and just summarized and linked here." In fact the material is covered in part at Holocaust_train and my request from November 8 included adding a link to that page.


 * To answer your question Nick-D, you may be confused with a known practice of the Reichsbahn during the time. More likely I think you are referring to the so-called Toulouse Invoice currently mentioned in the article, which claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets." This is very much a matter of dispute, one better addressed in the Holocaust train article I believe. Responding to your last point, I am still researching total SNCF casualties from the War.


 * To conclude, I would very much like the three paragraphs I proposed to be the full WWII section here, following Xyl's suggestion, so it can be dealt with in more detail in the topic-specific article. He has been offline for a bit, although I hope he does return. Is there support for this change now? I am also working on a draft for the Holocaust train article, which I hope to share soon. I welcome all comments. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw the new paragraphs in the WWII section; apologies for not being around much recently. I've taken the liberty of sorting the section out a bit (re-arrange the paras, trim the duplication, add some "See also" links); I trust that's OK with everyone.
 * On a wider note, I still feel the section is too long; it's dominating the article, which is supposed to be on the company as a whole. Can I suggest that the "Reactions to WWII involvement" sub-section is redundant here, as it is substantially a duplicate of what's in the Modern-day legacy section of the Holocaust train article. There's already a link to there; can I suggest we reduce this part to a brief summary and link to that part of the other article?
 * I've also put a break in this talk section; I trust that's OK too. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first of the two sections is certainly better now, thanks Xyl. A remaining issue, easily corrected: the sentence beginning "Nearly 1,700" is repeated twice, and one of them should be removed. I also agree with your suggestion to reduce the "Reactions" section to a summary. In fact, the sentence "These deportations have been the subject of historical controversy and lawsuits in France as well as in the United States." was intending to do just that in the version I proposed above. Related to that, I am working on a more complete version of the "France" section of Holocaust train which I would like to propose soon. Will you be available to remove it when I finish, and should I post it on that article's discussion page or this one? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That also seems sensible to me (thanks for the note on my talk page BTW). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, done. I’ve used the suggested paragraph as a summary and added a link; I’ve also moved some of the Reactions section to the Holocaust train article (here). Does that cover it, d'you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the supportive comment, Nick-D and thanks are due also to Xyl 54 for removing the remaining duplicated information. I am still working on the draft for the Holocaust train article but will be in touch with you once this is ready, if you would like to review that, too. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust train France Section
Hello again to anyone who is watching this page. In discussion late last year, I mentioned that I was working on a more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train. This is now ready and I have left a proposal at Talk:Holocaust_train. I hope that editors from this page will be available to review this. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Duplication
Hello, I see that an unregistered editor made some changes to this article today that Nick-D has undone. However, I noticed that the page is still twice as long as it should be. It appears an editor copied the whole article and pasted it in again so now the article repeats about half way down the page. You can see the edit here. Can and editor here correct this? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I took care of it. Cheers!  72.207.200.92 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Selective inclusion of claims -- suggestion to correct
Hello, editors of this Wikipedia page. I have commented here in the past as you may see in discussions previously, and in revisiting this article I have another suggestion to offer. Readers may remember I am a consultant in Washington, DC for SNCF. Independent editors interested in helping me to improve this page would be appreciated.

One of the more contentious, and in fact disputed, claims currently included in the section SNCF regards SNCF's requisition to transport French Jews to the border, and onward to Nazi camps. The claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims" are disputed not just by SNCF but by organizations such as Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France.

The source listed in the article is a 2006 report in The Guardian about a ruling by the Administrative Court of Toulouse in 2006 finding SNCF culpable for its role. Yet it also notes a previous court found otherwise in 2003. The Toulouse ruling was overturned in 2007, however this information is not mentioned in the article. News reports from 2007, by the BBC and Reuters for example, show that this decision was overturned. For this reason, I would like to suggest the declarative statements currently used be clarified as the Toulouse court's findings, and another sentence explaining that this ruling was overturned, as well as the previous court disagreeing.

Currently, the way this article states flatly that these are the "facts" gives a selective, distorted view of the matter. As I understand WP:VERIFY, Wikipedia reflects claims made by reliable sources, it does not decide which it believes. I think the current version of this article is contrary to that, and I want to invite editors to help. If volunteer editors are willing to consider an alternative that I may propose, I will be happy to do so. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have placed a warning on the section I have discussed as being inaccurate above. I would prefer to avoid making any direct changes to this article, because I am quite aware that it can be controversial. However as I have explained above, I believe the section as written is wrong, and readers a disservice to let it stand unchallenged as long as it remains wrong. Because this article appears to be unwatched, I will attempt to contact editors who had previously helped to improve problems in this section before. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2006 Guardian article does refer to the court ruling by the tribunal in Toulouse, which, as you pointed out, was overturned on appeal in 2007.  The lawsuits and others like it have to deal with the question of financial liability of SNCF to the survivors and their families, and their success or failure does not appear (from any of the reading I have been able to turn up) to be related to the accuracy of the claims, but questions of the appropriateness of findings of corporate liability and compensation to victims.   The Wikipedia article does not make any mention of any of these legal battles in the article, so the question of whether one court case was successful, unsuccessful, or overturned on appeal or not doesn’t seem to apply to this section.


 * Feel free to point me in the direction of anything that makes the claim that any of these court cases were unsuccessful due to factual questions about the claims mentioned in the Wikipedia article.


 * That aside, The Guardian article is used as a citation for the following two statements: “SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets” and “After the liberation of France, the SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims to Germany.”     The Guardian article appears to be a reliable source for those two statements, but there are plenty of others to choose from; for the first statement, we could use the two articles you linked to, or another reference that is already in the article, from www.theweek.co.uk “SNCF airs Holocaust regret as it bids for Florida rail”.  For the second statement, there is a March 20, 2003 article in the New York Times, “Nazis' Human Cargo Now Haunts French Railway” that would be a secondary reliable source for that statement.


 * I have added some of these additional sources to the section you’ve addressed.  I’ve also removed the factual dispute tag you’ve placed in that section.  Even though I’m tagging the editrequest template as “denied”, I am acting only in the capacity of an uninvolved third party who has reviewed the request, not as someone with "the final word"; feel free to seek further input from others and re-insert the editrequest template.  Neil916 (Talk) 02:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Neil916. Thank you for your considered reply here. While I understand the points that you make regarding the court case and the issue of reliable sourcing for the two disputed statements, I continue to believe that the section is inaccurate by virtue of repeating these inaccurate claims. There is no evidence in historical record for the claims, but it seems that Wikipedia must accept them simply because they have been repeated by the press.


 * If, at this moment, the claims cannot be removed or adjusted to explain where they originate, I have an alternative suggestion to help show that the situation is more complicated than presently portrayed. There are sources offering a different perspective from the disputed claims written by well-regarded authors. The first source I would like to mention is a paper by Serge Klarsfeld, President of the association of "Sons and Daughters of Deported French Jews". The paper is published on the Shoah Memorial website, here. Key quotes that I feel would add a needed alternative perspective in this section are:


 * "The Sons and Daughters are opposed to put on trial the SNCF which never acted on criminal basis but was obligated by German and Vichy authorities to cooperate for military and civil trains on French territory."


 * "A requisition order was an act of state authority from which the SNCF, the wagons, locomotive, drivers and mechanics could not escape."


 * "The SNCF is accused of making a profit from the deportation. If that were the case, it would be natural, indeed legitimate, for the SNCF to return this profit. However, there was no profit."


 * My suggestion is to add wording such as:


 * "According to Serge Klarsfeld, the President of the organization "Sons and Daughters of deported French Jews", the SNCF was forced by German and Vichy authorities to cooperate in providing transport for French Jews to the border and did not make any profit from this transport."


 * There is another source I feel will be helpful here, but I need some additional time to prepare a clear suggestion. First I would like to see whether you and other volunteer editors are willing to consider the above proposal. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
My apologies for anyone new coming to this request for the very detailed notes so far. To summarize, it is my belief that the section SNCF includes two contentious, disputed claims regarding the SNCF's requisition to transport Jews to the French border during WWII. Specifically, the claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims". Discussed above, it seems that as these false claims have been repeated in the media, from Wikipedia's perspective they are supported to remain in the article. My suggestion, therefore, is to add an alternative perspective on the issue via information from two expert sources on SNCF and WWII: Serge Klarsfeld, President of the association of "Sons and Daughters of Deported French Jews" and Michael Marrus, an eminent historian.

My proposals are in the box below, highlighted:

Once again, I am very interested to hear others' feedback on this and would like to see whether editors are willing to consider this suggestion. I will be watching this page for replies. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerry. I have looked at your suggested addition, and have checked the online source.  I wasn't able to check the Marrus book chapter  source, because it isn't online, but I have accepted what you have written in good faith, on the basis that Marrus and the editors of the book are reputable academics, and the chapter and the book itself appear to have been well received.  I have therefore added your suggested addition to the article, and have made some minor consequential amendments. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I came here from the post on Milhist's talk page. It seems tightening up the wording would help the readability more than anything else at this point since the changes were made. The refinement and tone of the section could be improved some to clarify the details. I don't know enough to do that myself, but would there be any objection to doing this as three paragraphs? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think three paragraphs would be insufficient to convey in readable form all of the information in the World War II section (which deals with more than just the Holocaust). When I made the recent additions to that section, I actually increased the number of paragraphs in the section, because I think short paragraphs each dealing with a single issue are more readable than longer paragraphs each covering several issues.  I would therefore be reluctant to take up Chris's suggestion. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for joining the discussion late: I agree the new paragraph improves our understanding of the issue, but I suggest it is misplaced. AFAIK the objection over transportation, billing, and pursuit of payment is specific to the Lipietz case, which already has its own article, and is also dealt with at length in the Holocaust train article. I would therefore suggest the paragraph about those objections, and the new material examining those claims would be best be added to the Lipietsz article, with a summary here. As this is a general article, too much detail will give undue weight to the issue, which already covers four (albeit short) paragraphs. What does anybody else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with this suggestion, apart from one aspect of it. The Alain Lipietz article is about an obscure politician.  It does not comply with the biographies of living persons policy on referencing, and gets only about 450 hits per month.  The Holocaust train article is about a specific type of train operated during part of World War II in many countries in Europe, France being only one of them.  By contrast, the SNCF article is about a major transport enterprise with operations in several countries.  It gets between 8,000 and 13,000 hits per month.  The information in the SNCF article about holocaust trains is part of a more general discussion of the SNCF during World War II, which lasted about 6 years and is possibly the most important event in Europe in the 20th century.  So I think the new material is best placed where it is, although I also think it would be well placed in both of the other articles as well.  That said, I agree that the World War II section in the SNCF article is disproportionately lengthy.  The reason for that is that the article as a whole in its present form is not long or comprehensive enough.  For example, it presently says little about the SNCF's extremely important role in the development of high-speed rail transport.  I think the solution to this problem is to expand the article.  I am willing to do some work on such an expansion, but it would be a significant task that would take some time to do properly. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I’m not clear on the point you are making, though: are you saying the allegations should stay here because they are more likely to be read? My reason for suggesting a move is to continue the main/subsidiary article structure; do you not think that applies?
 * As for expanding the Lipietz article (particularly; the Holocaust train article’s France section is big enough, I think) yes, I would agree (and I've made a start, here), but simply repeating what is here is duplication; it’d be better to move stuff.
 * And yes, this article could do with more content; there’s little or nothing, for example, about the network, locomotives, rolling stock, CME’s, or design philosophy. OTOH the high speed rail information which you feel is sparse is already covered in the TGV, Development of the TGV and High speed rail articles, so the High Speed Rail section here only needs to summarize them, and reflects the main/subsidiary balance well enough: Adding more stuff there would probably be counter-productive. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Bahnfrend. Thank you for incorporating my suggestion into this article. Though the discussion is not completed, your edit satisfies my request so I have marked the request template accordingly per its instructions.


 * Xyl 54, I have read your comment above and the note you left on my personal discussion page and would like to know what details you feel are unnecessary here in this article on SNCF and should be moved to the Alain Lipietz article. Perhaps you can quote the relevant section here so that we can see exactly what you propose?


 * I feel, and it seems that Bahnfrend agrees, that the topic of SNCF's involvement in WWII is very complex and needs a good amount of detail to accurately summarize the company's involvement and subsequent actions. The information added from the Marrus source that the claims about billing and transportation were raised as part of the Lipietz case adds context to those claims about SNCF's actions, which previously were included alone and so appeared uncontested. To my mind, it is important to include this context together with those claims, and not split them up across articles. Given the conflicting views on this topic we should be careful about trimming out information. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerry: As to what I would move, I’d say the entire last two paragraphs, ie. from “More recently….” to “…didn’t make any profit from the transport”.
 * I suppose I am seeing the billing issue as specific, and dated, given Marrus’ account; and am wary of giving it too much prominence in a general article.
 * But if you both feel the issue is better examined here, I can live with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Xyl 54, in that case, I am content with this proposal. My concern was that the claims about SNCF's actions might become separated from the context provided by Marrus and Klarsfeld, however, I am satisfied if you intend to move all of this information together.

Additionally, like yourself and Bahnfrend, I am in agreement that the WWII section has ended up with undue weight the article, given that this is historical information and since then the company has seen significant changes as it developed into its present form. If I may, I would like to assist with efforts to expand the article's discussion of the modern day company. If it is agreeable to all, I shall offer suggestions on this page for new content as I am able to, beginning with a small piece regarding a recent agreement with Israel Railways. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Information on Israel Railways agreement
A recent development in SNCF's operations is its strategic agreement with Israel Railways, which was signed on November 17th. My proposal is that a short statement about this event be added into this article's "Modern day" history. As I have explained previously on this page, since I work as a consultant for SNCF, it is preferable for other editors to assess my suggestions and make any changes in the article that they feel are appropriate.

Here is my suggestion:


 * On November 17, SNCF signed a strategic agreement with Israel Railways to invest in that company's development and modernization. The two companies had originally established a partnership in 2000. The new agreement builds upon the existing partnership, to include new commitments to assisting Israel Railways in training train drivers, developing and modernizing stations, improving passenger information and upgrading rolling stock for freight.

I hope that editors will consider this addition. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerry. I agree that the article should have more content about the present day company.  I will be taking two weeks off work over the Christmas/New Year period, and will therefore have more time to edit than usual.  If you want to make some further suggestions about additional material, I suggest that you make them now, and I will have a look at all of them (including your suggestion above) during my break.  Bahnfrend (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please discuss the requested edit with involved editors first in order to establish a consensus for this alteration. Sam Sailor Sing 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased information in WWII section
An editor named Boundandheard has added information to the section SNCF that presents a biased and incorrect view of the SNCF's operations during this period of time. I want to invite editors to assess this latest addition and consider its removal. For those who may not be aware, I work as a consultant for SNCF, so rather than making any changes here myself I ask that other editors consider my suggestions and make such changes in the article as appropriate.

The difficulty, one of several, with the new material in the section is that it draws from a biased source, the website for the Coalition for Holocaust Rail Justice, which is an advocacy website focused on pursuing SNCF for reparations. I do not believe this is a reliable source for this article, as its historical views are not neutral and are unsupported by facts. Additionally, the editor has added a new link to the executive summary of the Bachelier Report, commissioned by SNCF to detail the history of the SNCF during WWII, which appears to have been the primary source for some of this addition. However, the editor adding this material has taken a narrow, cherry-picking approach to the source, as well as including details that do not appear at all in this summary report. Let me explain this in more detail:
 * The material they added states that "SNCF retained control and responsibility for the deportations", however in the report Bachelier explains in detail how SNCF (as a French government organization) was under the control of the Nazi German occupation, that the German authorities had power to choose who was in leadership of the organization, and that senior SNCF officials were at times during the war arrested and placed into prisoner of war camps for non-cooperation. Failure to immediately submit to Nazi command was met with execution of the worker and their spouse and children. Some 800 SNCF workers were executed, mostly by axe, and another 1,200 were deported to the death camps and were murdered there. Additionally, the report explains that the decision to undertake the deportations and their implementation were under the jurisdiction of Nazi German military command and WVD (the transportation of the Nazi German army). It is clear from this context that SNCF was operating under the complete control of the Nazi occupying forces and that responsibility for the deportations fell to the Nazi-puppet Vichy government (which was recognized by the United States).


 * Likewise, while the report does mention that no official protest from SNCF is present in historical record, from the context of the report's description of the power over the SNCF's senior management, it is abundantly clear why this would be the case.


 * The report gives no mention of the complaints allegedly made about Red Cross workers slowing down deportation schedules.


 * Regarding invoicing for payment of deportations, the report does state that SNCF submitted invoices, but that these were for general use of SNCF passenger and baggage cars by the occupying forces. There is no mention that invoices or payments were for deportations. In fact, the one invoice presented has been proven to be unrelated to Jewish deportations.

To summarize, the Bachelier Report does not provide an "different perspective" from that offered by Michael Marrus and Serge Klarsfeld. It has been purposefully misrepresented in this addition. I am interested to hear from independent editors as to what may be done with this addition. Pending this additional analysis, I strongly request that this addition be promptly deleted. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After considering the edit and Jerry's post, I have reverted the edit. I do not have a copy of the whole of the Bachelier Report, and therefore cannot comment on its entire contents.  What I can say is that I am not convinced that the Coalition for Holocaust Rail Justice website is a reliable source.  To be reliable, a source does not have to be neutral.  However, only the final sentence of the edit was supported by the executive summary linked to the website, and the assertion that the "SNCF retained control and responsibility for the deportations" is contradicted by page 4 of the executive summary, which clearly states that the French operated the network and the Germans supervised its operations (as one would expect, given that the Germans occupied most of France at the time).  Further evidence that the source is unreliable is the assertion on the website that "SNCF even submitted invoices for the deportations and pursued payment after the liberation of Paris"; the document linked to that assertion is a covering letter dated 12 August 1944, a date nearly two weeks before the Germans surrendered Paris (25 August 1944), and refers only to "transportation", and the invoices said to have been attached to the covering letter are not included in the upload. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Bahnfrend, for removing the inaccurate information. I should also let you and any others watching this page know that SNCF has been in the news in the United States recently, due to a project awarded to their subsidiary, Keolis and an additional high-profile project that this subsidiary is bidding upon. This might draw a certain amount of attention back to this article, so if you (or any other editors, for that matter) are able to keep an eye on this page in case additional biased information is added, I think that would be helpful, although I will certainly be watching as well. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization
SNCF is now composed of corporate management and two divisions: SNCF Réseau (infrastructure, formerly Réseau Ferré de France) and SNCF Mobilité (operations). This page and the following pages all need to be organized to reflect the current status of SNCF and railways in France: Réseau Ferré de France, SNCF Infra, Gestionnaire d’Infrastructure Unifié. I don't have time to do this right now or else I would (or will) do it myself. Refer to the French version of this page as well as this link. AHeneen (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SNCF. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501043038/http://www.utbm.fr/media/pem/LivreNum_LesCahiersDeRECITSn2.pdf to http://www.utbm.fr/media/pem/LivreNum_LesCahiersDeRECITSn2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202221852/http://www.memorialdelashoah.com/attachments/article/77/Serge_Klarsfeld_sen_judiciary_comm_sncf_washington_july_2012.pdf to http://www.memorialdelashoah.com/attachments/article/77/Serge_Klarsfeld_sen_judiciary_comm_sncf_washington_july_2012.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sncf.fr/indexe.htm
 * Added tag to http://39-45.sncf.com/documents/Bachelier_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf
 * Added tag to http://elenastravelgram.com/2014/04/france-by-train-ultimate-guide-to-french-railroad.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Defunct or outdate stakes information
Removed the NTV stake they liquidated.

Quite a few of those listed are out of date, and either do not function or have been reorganised.

These should be updated to fit with what is the current situation AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Literal translation?
The lead describes "French National Railway Company" as a literal translation of "Société nationale des chemins de fer français". I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate wording, as to my mind a "literal translation" is a translation which intends to demonstrate things like the grammar of a different language or the etymology of its vocabulary rather than demonstrate what the thing being translated actually means in common usage. It may be preferable to simply say that "Société nationale des chemins de fer français" means "French National Railway Company" without specifying whether or not that translation is "literal" or not. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a level 3 section titled "United Kingdom"?
I'm puzzled as to why the 2nd section of the "Business Scope" section is devoted to one country, particularly as both the tenders considered there do not seem to have been completed. Shouldn't this information be in the following section, if it is needed? But it's been there at least 5 years so I'm hesitant to delete it without checking. Chris55 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"KiloMetro SNCF" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KiloMetro_SNCF&redirect=no KiloMetro SNCF] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Fork99 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)