Talk:Valhalla train crash

citation for only the second incident with passenger fatalities in MNR history
In diff, WWGB requests a citation for only the second incident with passenger fatalities in MNR history. I don't have a good source offhand. But there are plenty of sources for December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment was the first passenger fatalities in MNR history. Best I could find is but the language used is maybe not explicit. could use another pair of eyes. quote: Before Tuesday, the most devastating crash had occurred at Spuyten Duyvil in the Bronx in December 2013, when four passengers were killed and more than 70 others were injured in a derailment on the Hudson line.

It was the first crash to result in passenger deaths in the railroad’s history. Now it has grim company, although the circumstances on Tuesday appeared notably different. --Jeremyb (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems clear enough to me. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Spuyten Duyvil derailment was the first derailment in MNR's history, no deaths have happened on MNR trains between that incident and the Valhalla crash, so one can reasonably assume this is the second incident with passenger fatalities. Epic Genius (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Signalized?
OK, I understand that the article is going to be in American English because we are dealing with an event in the US. Is "signalized" really the best word to use? Would "controled" (controlled in Br. Eng, not sure if Am. Eng loses the double "l") be a better word? Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, American English does use two "l's," but "signalized" is an appropriate description. I've seen parts of the country where "control" is limited to signs at the crossings, even on Long Island. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just seems such an odd word to me though. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked it in case any online reader needs to know what is meant. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Better Picture?
I have no idea where any of you are from, but this article could really do with a better image that actually shows the crash. Anyone in the area is invited to upload it, preferably to Commons. Sadly no fair use applies here so its the only way we can get one. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * www.commons.wikimedia.org? That's not the right site. I changed the link. Epic Genius (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * umm yes www.commons.wikimedia.org you can put www in front of anything... You do know that right? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "https://www.commons.wikimedia.org" creates a HTTPS error. Your connection is not secure if you click that link, because it doesn't match the certificate sent by that website. Better to just use the http://commons.wikimedia.org link. Epic Genius (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone could get over there before they clear the wreckage, that would be great; otherwise we could upload a fair use image, as it would document a uniquely historic and unreproducable event.  ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in Manhattan right now and live in Queens, so my involvement out of the picture. I wonder if is close enough to the site. (Pinging him as he's also the main contributor to the article, and uploaded an image of a shuttle bus earlier today.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, MTA doesn't have any photos of the crash on Flickr. Epic Genius (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have family members over there; I'll let you know if one of them'll do it ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In case you do, that would be very helpful. Epic Genius (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been told the train has already been moved to a warehouse off-site, and that the SUV is gone too. So no luck with any present photos, though I know someone who might've taken some...-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  22:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, the MTA does work fast. Maybe they're going to restore service within the week. Well, if you can't find any free use photos, we can use a fair use photo from one of the news sites. Epic Genius (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

MTA service was restored this morning (they are fast), see the paragraph I added in "Aftermath". Also, I haven't been able to find any free ones; I'll let someone else double-check before I fair-use upload.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * already uploaded NTSB images of the train here and here. All images taken by NTSB employees while on their official duties are government-owned and so are public domain. Good catch, FFM784., pinging you as free images have already been found. Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw it as he added it. That's odd how NTSB images are PD yet the NTSB marks its Flickr photos under CC-NC (not Wiki-acceptable). Also Epicgenius, that 're' or 'ping' template has a number of complexities, and thus it won't actually ping unless certain conditions are met, see the template page for details. I think brackets will still ping without condition, like User:Epicgenius.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to be more impressed with the NTSB's publication of the picture, or Metro-North's restoration of service. -User:DanTD (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently any NTSB images taken under official duty is under a public domain license (no commercial use, though.) Epic Genius (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't get that ping, unfortunately. It's supposed to ping whenever a user signs 4 tildes. Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Links
Do we really need to link "headlights", "laptop", "union", "climbing", or "gasoline"? Are we next going to link "fatalities", "Investigators", and "evidence"?-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  23:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. That's WP:OVERLINK. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I removed the links per WP:Linking. Epic Genius (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had linked them for different reasons, primarily because their meanings may not be obvious to everyone, particularly from outside the U.S. "Gasoline", for one thing, is the North American word for what is called "petrol" in the rest of the English-speaking world. We cannot assume every English-speaking reader, or non-native English speaker, will be familiar with it to understand it without at least a link to mouse over (particularly in the latter instance since many foreign languages use some approximation of "benzene" for it). I'll concede on "laptop" and "union", particularly since that one was replaced by its full term (but remember again that a labor union is a "trade union" in Commonwealth English). "Climbing", I linked because while the sport's participants know what is meant, for more people than you would think "climbing" is as much how you get up a ladder or staircase as how you get up Half Dome—so linking it is of service to a reader who doesn't realize that technical climbing, the latter kind, is what was meant. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked gasoline because it is a "foreign" word to most of the English speaking world, we say petrol. It should be linked for this reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Robert Dirks notable?
We seem to have decided that one of the victims, Walter Liedtke, is notable, and based on his reported accomplishments (curator of European art at the Met; author of a two-volume guide to the museum's Dutch paintings) I don't doubt that he was.

But it occurs to me that another victim, computational chemist Robert M. Dirks, might have met our notability standards for scientists without having to die so tragically. According to Bloomberg, his employer states that he "made tremendous contributions to our own research, and to the broader scientific community" by being "involved in the development of novel computational chemistry methods."

Turns out this might be a bit more than hype/kind words about the dearly departed, take your pick. Google Scholar shows he had a pretty respectable CV, with most but not all of his work dating to his postdoc at Caltech. Two of our own articles, Folding@home (an FA) and Adaptive sampling, cite papers he coauthored, and it seems like we're not the only place he got cited, either. I'm not sure how to interpret it, but his page at DocbyDoc looks pretty encouraging, too.

I should get some of the WP:WPBIO science people and WP:CHEM people on this one as well. Not only can they better decide if he meets the criteria than I, they can actually understand and explain why his work made him notable. (I won't pretend to). Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Commerce Street reopened to car traffic?
now says: "Commerce Street remains closed to vehicles, and is due to reopen when the NTSB finishes its investigation."

Apparently reopened 5+ days ago but can't find a good ref. Best I found was dailyvoice.com. (see also The Daily Voice (U.S. hyperlocal news)) FWIW, "when the NTSB finishes its investigation" will be many moons from now. --Jeremyb (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Suicide as motive?
Are there any reliable sources that have speculated on the possibility of a suicide attack as a motive? Redhanker (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPECULATION, speculation is not allowed in articles regardless of the reliability of the source. Transcendence (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular I quote from WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Transcendence (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be, but we'll wait and see what those reliable sources say when they've been laying off the bong hits for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your snarky response will fly over this person's head. Redhanker has been tying every average shooting and accident to terrorism for years on Wikipedia now. Transcendence (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case, better a snarky response. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Suicide attack seems unlikely. She could have just left the car, as others have done (one possibly wrist-cutting before or afterward to make it look like a canceled suicide). Reckless suicide with unintended consequences (few could have predicted that the Metro-North line is a bad place for this kind of suicide due to its third-rail design), maybe. Her actions seemed deliberate, and they were puzzling: calmly looking at the rear scrape, getting back in the car, driving forward onto the rails, and then waiting for the train. But intent would require her to also intentionally get trapped there, and intent gives no reason to get out and check the damage – a look out the window to verify alignment with the tracks would suffice. Maybe she only decided to die after seeing the scrape, having a very low threshold (ridiculous). There's lots of speculation, mostly by bloggers and commenters, some opinionated. Does any reliable source state that investigators give any chance to suicide as the explanation? Go fish: (Google search) One media quotes her daughters saying "I thought that maybe she committed suicide. ...", but concluding "She's not a murderer." Anyone would wonder about suicide as a possible explanation, surely including the investigators. But that's not noteworthy unless an investigator rules suicide in (or out), based on some scrap of evidence. Lacking a clear sign of intent, it's presumed an accident; a fatal, possibly distracted miscalculation. -A876 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After nearly two years, my theory is that when the guy behind her backed up, she thought that meant she was past the tracks rather than on them (remember, she probably wasn't familiar with that detour, and it was dark). Thus her apparent nonchalance as she takes the barricade off her car and gets back in to drive off ... she didn't think she was in any danger. (I also suspect there was some reason for her to be distracted as well). Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of upturned third-rail tips?
In a paragraph I just added, it mentions that to facilitate the underrunning configuration of the trains' shoes, the tips of the third rails are slightly upturned at grade crossings (suggesting that it might have been a factor in why the rails came loose on impact).

This should be easy to get a picture of and illustrate ... even if we can't get a picture of the third rails at the Commerce Street crossing yet, there are plenty of other grade crossings on the Harlem Line in upper Westchester—in addition to the nearby Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, the Katonah and Brewster (OK, so it's in Putnam County, not Westchester) stations are also adjacent to grade crossings. Someone want to get out and do it? I couldn't find anything on Commons that we could even crop to, but I may not have been looking in the right place. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Ideally we could get something like the picture at right, from our German friends. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this image would be fine, since we really don't have any images of under-running Metro-North third rails, which look similar to the third rail in File:Stromschiene-unterbricht-am-Bahnuebergang-Berlin-Lichtenrade-S-Bahn LWS0412.JPG. The actual Metro-North third rail looks like this. Epic Genius (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is, that given how easy it is to get close enough to the rail ends at stations like Katonah and Brewster, a similar image from Metro-North shouldn't be hard to get. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. You or another editor can easily take a picture of that third rail at a Metro-North railroad crossing (all the better if the MTA releases a picture of the third rail in its Flickr). I'm way too far from any Metro-North grade crossings. Epic Genius (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Move protection
After a good faith move, and reversal of same, I've move protected the article to prevent a move war. If an editor feels strongly that the article should be moved, then WP:RM is the correct venue. IMHO, a year disambiguator is not needed, as there is no other Valhalla train crash article to disambiguate from. Should that situation occur, then we can deal with it at the time. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent Article
I spent about 45 seconds sizing up this article, but I can already tell that it's a winner! How do I nominate this article for a trains portal featured article? Srwalden (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Figured it out! Submitted as a nomination under Portal:Trains/Selected_article_candidates - Srwalden (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Deaths and 2015 Philadelphia train derailment
Diff Just because 8 people is more than 6 doesn't mean you use a source that DOESN'T say anywhere that officials are calling the Philadelphia crash the worst since Valhalla. -- I want to point this out. NOBODY SAID THAT. At that point in 2015, it was the deadliest passenger train crash in the United States since the 2009 Washington Metro train collision, which killed nine people and injured eighty others; the May 2015 Philadelphia train derailment involving a speeding Amtrak train surpassed it, killed eight people. Never does it say the worst. It has more deaths and that what the article is saying. Nowhere does it say worst or anything of the sort. It is a factual statement. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Worst, deadliest, potato, patato. What I'm trying to say is that you don't just put information like that and have it supported with a source that doesn't even mention the Valhalla crash anywhere (I read it as thoroughly as possible, and I know I didn't see any reference to that previous crash anywhere), let alone say the Philadelphia crash surpassed anything. I agree with the fact that 8 is obviously more than 6 and that the Philadelphia crash has been the deadliest in the country since Valhalla, but if that piece of info is gonna stay, it's gonna need a source that'll verify its legitimacy, otherwise it'll just be anyone's opinion, all because 8 is more than 6. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, guys, this is a rather silly reason for an edit war. I consider this fact rather trivial; if it is mentioned in the article at all it should be in one of the notes near the end, not in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there's no way one can just support information with a source that DOESN'T EVEN VERIFY ANYTHING. That's what my issue was. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

this article was really REALLY bad
Full of sensationalized dramatized insignificant nonsense that presumes the driver of the SUV took stupid actions. I see nothing that can't be explained by her simply panicking and being yet another blameless victim. LETS CLEAN IT UP PEOPLE - this article's state was a disgrace. CapnZapp (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of your edits make sense, at least superficially. But I don't see the sense of removing the direct perspective of an eyewitness, or taking Alan Brody's name out of it, not when he gets quoted and referred to so much in all the sources (And is it really necessary to be referring to him as "the spouse"? That's trying too hard). I will have to revert some of your changes. In the future, by the way, please consider a) starting discussions like this on the talk page before you go editing away, and b) avoiding section heds like this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's our call to evaluate "the direct perspective of an eyewitness" as notable enough for inclusion. But I found this particular testimony to be unacceptably slanted - alarming enough to be bold (and skip decorum). If you want to include those parts of the testimony, I would suggest balancing it by a second voice, perhaps a news article discussing how easy it is to panic in these situations, how accidentally missing a gearshift is common or uncommon... or whatever. I'd still ask you to argue why it's important even after we agree on something neutral, though. Personally, I found the easiest fix to be just removing the objectionable parts. The testimony is still there. As for the husband's name - that sources name him is not an argument for us to do so. I see no justification for naming him. (As for "spouse" I guess I got that from the NTSB report. No it isn't necessary.) CapnZapp (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general rule (having written a lot of true-crime articles) I don't mention a family member or close friend who would not only not be notable by any standard but would be unlikely to be mentioned in any other Wikipedia article save the one where their existence is relevant ... unless they have to be mentioned frequently enough that constantly writing around their name becomes awkward and almost comical (as, to me, your constant use of "the spouse" or "the husband" was). As I've said, I believe the fact that Alan Brody has put his name out there, to the point of actually writing something in a rail-industry trade magazine (see Further reading) and has not asked that the media respect his privacy nor ever told them "no comment" (quite the opposite, in fact—he has been a tireless advocate) is a strong argument for using his name. Contrariwise, I would point to Murder of Janet March, pretty much all of which I researched and wrote. In the "1990s marital difficulties" section, there are several references in the first two grafs to a paralegal at the law firm where Perry March worked at the time whom he attempted to initiate an extramarital affair with, an effort whose consequences, when his wife learned about them, caused some of the strain in their marriage that led to him killing her. The woman's name is in the court opinions on the case, more than one in fact, but since it seems her role in the case was peripheral and she did not seek any publicity as a result of that role in the case—she did not seek any at all, actually, and one of the sources suggested she had been somewhat reluctant to testify about Perry's overtures to her in the first place, I decided we could get by in that article without using her name. I have not changed my mind on that in the nearly four years since I created the article. Anyone who really wants to know her name can go digging through the court records like I did. Her, I would put at the other end of the spectrum from Alan Brody. I think both these decisions of mine are consistent with BLPNAME, which turns in large part on whether "the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed." This is true of the paralegal; I do not ocnsider it in any way true of Alan Brody (whose name makes a lot more than "brief appearances" in news stories; I also think he is now very "directly involved" in the article's topic). Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll respect your informed decision then. As for the general state of the article (at the time of this writing) it's much better - meaning our editorial voice (through the testimony of witnesses) doesn't come across as strongly as blaming the car driver. I still have quibbles, mostly the level of detail re: the pending lawsuits I find inappropriate for the lead. As a final note, I sincerely hope you don't feel personally attacked. It doesn't pay to feel like a primary author even if your activity could justify such a view - keep in mind there's no ownership of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps crudely: since I did not *intend* to make a personal attack, none was made. CapnZapp (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel attacked, actually, to which I credit your smooth response and informed criticism; this has actually (yes) improved the article, I daresay a bit more than the GA process did (I should say that while I had had the idea for a long time to nominate it, another editor chose to when it seemed like we all had a great deal more free time all of a sudden a few months ago—one of four articles I've done a lot of work on that other people nominated for GA then (something which I must admit is flattering). So unlike articles whose nominations I initiate myself, I didn't have as much of a chance to go over and vet it, a process which, had I done it, might have resulted in cutting down the litigation section as you did. Ownership is bad, yes, but I do not think that should deter us from practicing stewardship of articles, especially those we have invested a lot of personal effort in improving. Perhaps it's easier for me to say and do this because, since unlike so many other people (it seems) I do not set my watchlist to add anything I edit. I have a watchlist of less than 500 articles (mostly) rather than some astronomical four-figure amount, so I can actually do these things. So it may seem a little bit like I'm owning. But the upshot is that I can and do revert vandalism and good-faith additions of unsourced material in the articles that are on my list. Ownership, from this perspective, would be if I reverted every single change, even those made in clear good faith, even those helpful to the article, no matter what, and as you must concede in this case I have not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Litigation section
In my opinion the Litigation section alone should clearly have disqualified this article from GA status. I think I've managed to cut out all the loud unencyclopedic noise now. CapnZapp (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right that at this point we don't need the relevant quotes from the lawyers anymore ... perhaps because I cut my teeth writing for newspapers I am used to quoting people. In the future, though, when you do this sort of editing, consider that it often leaves a bunch of disconnected, random-seeming single-sentence paragraphs behind, which MOS:PARA discourages (Indeed that was part of the reason for the quotes originally, I think). I will be finding a way to put all these splinters back together. He would cut must suture as well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Time to lift move protection?
I just noticed that the move protection on this article celebrated its sixth birthday yesterday. While that may have made sense when it was imposed, within a month or so of the crash, there has been no serious dispute or discussion over the name of this article (it's not really consistent yet with the naming of other train-wreck articles, but it's hardly alone in that regard) since then. Not that there couldn't be or shouldn't be, but I think the days when someone was just ready to move the article willy-nilly to make it their preferred name are long gone.

Would anybody mind if I lift the protection? Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, since no one objected in most of a month, I have lifted the move protection. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Other lines using under-running third rail
Note f states that LIRR uses under-running third rail, citing to the NTSB report, which does indeed say that. But the NTSB report is incorrect; LIRR uses top-contact third rail, as is visible in the photo at the top of the LIRR article, among many other photos. How should this situation be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:CD00:109A:50AF:5DBC:7EC5:1CB9 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old problem of what to do when we have correctly cited a reliable source, which turns out to be itself incorrect (there's a project-space page on this somewhere; I can't remember what it's called). At the moment I think the least I/we could do is ask if anyone knows of, or can find, a reliable source to this effect, and put some sort of inline note in the text referring readers to this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Belatedly in response to this discussion ... I took that graf out of the LIRR article since I couldn't find a reliable source. Plenty of forums say this, and I agree the pictures of the LIRR show an overrunning third rail, but ... that's not enough.
 * I will amend the note appropriately ... probably just take it out, or take the LIRR out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)