Talk:2015 Philadelphia train derailment

I was on that train

If you have questions for me, I can answer in the next couple of days.

Why no mention of acceleration?

Why is there no mention of the unexplained acceleration? There is only one simple explanation, the driver for obvious reasons, manually increased the speed, as there are no other explanations. Driver was experienced to know he was supposed to slow down, applying emergency brake after acceleration is hard to explain. In light of operator-induced crashes in aircraft, why no mention of considerable news coverage of the possibility here? Bachcell (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Because unlike political and media pundits, Wikipedia is not a place to repeat wanton, unsupported speculation about living people, particularly speculation that lays blame or suggests any sort of intent was involved. Your simple declaration that "there are no other explanations" requires us to take your bald declaration over the reasoned investigations of the National Transportation Safety Board. We don't know why this crash occurred and it is irresponsible and unfair to all involved to engage in rumormongering over it. We are not a newspaper and we can afford to wait for the investigation to take place and for the truth to be revealed. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. If we tried to explain it, it wouldn't be an unexplained acceleration anymore. So we couldn't mention it. But since we don't, we can and already do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, May 19, 2015 (UTC)

Again, as I said earlier, we should ignore this editor, since I suspect he may be a sock of another editor who always harps on this theme. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't your statement somewhat of a violation of WP:AGF (assume good faith)? If you have specific suspicions, name them. We can't prove (yet) the cause of the acceleration, but the news media has at least speculated about it, and in the absence of proof I'd say that speculation can be properly repeated here. A statement that "there are no other explanations" may be improper for the article, yet proper for the Talk page. Sluefoot (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary report

The preliminary report has been released by the NTSB. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A second preliminary report has also been released. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

stipulated

The choice of the word "stipulated" seems inappropriate to me. The usual meaning is: to specify, often as a condition of an agreement; to insist on, as a term of an agreement; to guarantee or promise. None of those meanings are appropriate here. I'm unsure whether there is a legal meaning consistent with what the editor means, but in any case that meaning will not be apparent to the normal reader who has no comprehension of such legal jargon. Furthermore, the term is not found in the reference cited, whereas the term "admitted" is found several times. I suggest that "admitted" is preferable, and am reverting once more, not in order to have my own way but to draw attention to the disputed word and this Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that Mandruss reverted while I was typing the above. Akld guy (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Some online dictionaries, including dictionary.com, list Centpacrr's definition as a legal term. Others, such as merriam-webster.com, don't list it at all. Per WP:TECHNICAL, we should avoid language that would be understandable only to those familiar with legalese.

I also still believe the name of the court is excessive detail of interest to extremely few readers, and readily available to them in the source. After I removed it with a clear edit summary to that effect, Centpacrr restored it with not even an acknowledgement of my concern in their edit summary, let alone real discussion. I consider that very poor editing practice, but I won't press the point beyond this comment. If others agree with me, I hope they will say so here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The legal definition doesn't appear in my dictionary, but I had a vague recollection that such a definition indeed exists. I agree that the name of the court was too much intricate detail, available simply by reading the reference cited. Akld guy (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In law stipulations are formal legal acknowledgements and agreements between the parties in lawsuits that concern business before a court and are designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs. During the course of civil lawsuits such as Berman v NPRC and Iban et al v NPRC in these filings (or any other type of litigation), the attorneys for the opposing parties may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues and such formal agreements is called "stipulations" which is what happened when NPRC (Amtrak) filed its answers to these complaints stipulating that, as charged in the complaints being answered, that the derailment occurred while TR 188 was exceeding the speed limit as it entered the 4º Frankford Junction curve and thus Amtrak would not contest (i.e. "stipulated") its liability for compensatory damages. All courts look with favor on stipulations because they save time and simplify the matters that must be resolved although they are voluntary and courts may not require litigants to stipulate with the other side. While courts are not necessarily bound by informal "admissions", they are bound by valid stipulations such as in this case as they constitute formal legal acknowledgements and agreements between the parties as to facts and Courts are therefore required to enforce them. As this is what happened in the answers filed by Amtrak in the US District Court (EDPA) on July 10 in Berman and Iban et al, the term "stipulated" is the correct one to use. I have therefore restored this term to the paragraph I contributed to the article relating to Amtrak's July 10 filings as well as added a wikilink to the term linking it to the WP entry on what a "Stipulation" is in law. Centpacrr (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, your use of the term might be WP:OR since it's not used in the reference cited. Secondly, it introduces a needless complexity and goes against WP:TECHNICAL, as Mandruss pointed out in his edit summary. Isn't it just simpler to say "admitted", as in the reference? Finally, I believe that the correct usage might be "stipulated to", which means that if consensus is to keep the term, you may need to rephrase: "stipulated to the fact that Train 188...". Due to time zone, I will be unable to reply for the next few hours but will sign in again about mid-afternoon US time. Akld guy (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose "stipulated to" as well. If a more commonly recognized word adequately conveys the intended meaning, as I believe "admitted" does, there is no reason to use a less commonly recognized word. While there may be a small difference in definition, it is so nuanced as to be meaningless to virtually all readers aside from lawyers. I believe we should be aiming for a 10th grade reading level, and I think it's unlikely the average 10th grade reader knows any of the definitions of "stipulated". We are not here to teach vocabulary. I have returned the article to "admitted" and request that Centpacrr recognize he is currently in the minority on this question. That may change, but until it does "admitted" has more support here than "stipulated". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

FTR, Centpacrr has reverted again. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• In law "stipulated" has a specific legal meaning in pleadings to a lawsuit that "admitted" does not as explained above and confirmed in the WP entry Stipulation which I have wikilinked to the term in the article. (See also here and here (5).) WP is a reference work designed to expand it's reader's knowledge and understanding of the subjects they are reading about. As such it is not meant to be written for the lowest common denominator especially when doing so provides misleading information.

If you were not familiar with the term "stipulation" before, you certainly should be now through this thread and that means you have now learned something new. Is that not the ultimate purpose and function of the Wikipedia Project? So why work a cross purposes to that by substituting the wrong term for the correct one? That is simply unhelpful and serves to defeat, not aid, the purpose of the project. And even if it were not wikilinked to the legal definition, it is also certainly clear from the context of the sentence what it means. However to make it even more so I have tweaked the language in th article to read "admitted by formal stipulation" so that there can be no misunderstanding.

Thant being said, I must observe that "stipulated" is really not an esoteric word, but one in common English usage. Also as a matter of policy comments posted by only two editors in the period of half a day hardly constitutes "consensus" of the community even if the OP of the entry in the article (myself) had not responded as yet. Centpacrr (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I was familiar with the definitions of "stipulated" before we started this issue, including the legal definition, but I don't write for my reading level here. The purpose of this article is to inform about a train derailment, not about legal terminology. Your claim that the word is "in common English usage" is simply incorrect, as demonstrated by the fact that it does not even appear in the merriam-webster.com entry. Although it may be in common usage among the company you keep, that group is not representative of Wikipedia's main target audience. That's all I have to say on the issue, and I'm willing to wait for more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's why I wikilinked "stipulation" for those who may have been confused or unfamiliar with it, but again its meaning was already clear from the context. As for "Wikipedia's main audience" there is no such thing -- it is for everybody -- and is designed to expand the knowledge of its readers, not dumb down to its lowest common denominator. That would just make it little more than mental pablum. Centpacrr (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone read Amtrak's filing? I don't have PACER access and I haven't seen it posted. I'm not a lawyer, but the Times article suggests that Amtrak has admitted liability, which may preclude a trial altogether. While Centpacrr is correct about the definition of a stipulation, I think it only applies for facts agreed to when a case goes to trial. I'm unsure about using a technical term with specific meaning when it's unclear whether this is in fact what has happened. Regarding the court name, I've seen far too many Wikipedia articles where the court name is omitted and then either the source goes away or gets edited into oblivion. I think it makes sense to mention the court (we do have an article on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, incidentally), for two reasons: protect against the erosion already mentioned, and to give the reader a quick sense of which level of the US court system is involved. My two cents, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The original unexplained use of "stipulation" was very confusing to the general reader not schooled in legal terminology, and therefore was problematic (and tending towards obscurantism). The current wording "admitted by formal stipulation" at least gives a strong hint about its meaning, and the addition of the Wikilink allows an interested reader to find an in-depth explanation, while other readers can continue following the article here without stumbling over precise but unfamiliar terminology. It would have been better to address the issue without the multiple reverts, but I hope the problem might be considered to be resolved now.

The explanation of "stipulation" given above here is actually more extensive and more helpful than the Wikipedia stub article on stipulation, as it had remained since September 2013. I see that the article has just been improved somewhat by Centpacrr and suggest that further efforts be made to expand on what is still a stub. This really could improve the overall quality and usefulness of that Wikipedia article for the general reader. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Amtrak's answer, according to the stories, stipulates acceptance of liability for compensatory damages only but does not speak to potential punitive damages or those limited by statute. The entry now reads:

In answers filed by Amtrak with the U.S. District Court (EDPA) in Philadelphia on July 10, 2015 in response to the first two passenger lawsuits the company admitted fault by stipulating that the train was "traveling in excess of the allowable speed" when it derailed and thus Amtrak "will not contest liability for compensatory damages proximately caused by the derailment of Train 188 on May 12, 2015".

I trust this now satisfies everybody's concerns. Centpacrr (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm sure that the legal usage is "stipulate to [a fact]", which is even what the Wiki definition says. Therefore you might consider changing to "the company admitted fault by stipulating to the fact that the train was "traveling in excess of the allowable speed". The Wiki definition lists only the legal definition, unfortunately, so in your attempt to educate readers about a new word, I hope you're not misleading them about the more mundane meaning, which is: to specify a condition prior to reaching an agreement. Example: Wikipedia stipulates that editors are not to introduce original research. Akld guy (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I appear to be alone now as to appropriate language level (among those present), despite WP:TECHNICAL, so I'll demonstrate appropriate collaborative editor behavior to you and back off. But, please, don't claim you have satisfied "everybody's concerns". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No you're not alone. I'm far from happy at the current wording. Akld guy (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe this should be an RfC. Not because this one passage in this little article is that important, but because it would tell us more about how the community feels about language level. It could present two versions of the passage and ask participants to choose one, with arguments of course. It might even result in some clarification in WP:TECHNICAL. I definitely do not believe Centpacrr's views on this are in line with community consensus, and one of the two who supported him uses the word "obscurantism". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not unconditionally supporting the way "stipulation" is used in the article in its current version, and I think the current wording leaves plenty of room for improvement. My reference to "obscurantism" was actually intended to be ironic. I am very concerned about explanations that are technically correct, but unenlightening to a general reader. A non-obvious but technically correct explanation must be accompanied by a "gloss" or "translation" into plain English. The proper inclusion of both does not "dumb down" the article; rather, it raises the level of the reader's understanding in a relatively painless way. Reify-tech (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I misread your position, then, and now see you in a middle position. I still believe it's possible to convey the essential facts without any legalese at all, and there are other articles where readers can go if they want to learn those terms. It's not for us to decide for them that they should know those terms and that seems a bit paternalistic. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As perhaps a useful comparison, I yesterday added the following passage to another article:

In October 2014 Garner's family announced their intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of New York, the police department, and several police officers, seeking $75 million in damages. The parties announced a $5.9-million out-of-court settlement on July 13, 2015.

That passage uses several terms that might be called legalese, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that they are all commonly used in news stories. In contrast, I challenge anyone to find many uses of "stipulate" in a legal context in mainstream news stories. And the word does not appear in either of the two news stories cited for the current language in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer that "stipulated" be dropped entirely in favour of "admitted", on grounds per Mandruss. The mundane meaning is "to set or demand or insist on a condition to be met". That is the meaning that is best known to readers, who on reading the current sentence will wonder how the railroad could admit fault by setting the condition to be met that the train was speeding! The sentence doesn't even make sense tense-wise. How can an admission be made by setting a precondition that the train was (sic) speeding?

I suggest that unless Centpacrr can show how this legal term he is insisting on using is properly used in the sentence, the term should be avoided.

The reader should not be forced to click to another page to find out whether the term has a special meaning and what that meaning is. The plain meaning should be apparent on the page, especially when a suitable word that everyone understands is available. It is absurd to suggest that we should force the reader to learn a new word, even if you think you're doing him a service. Akld guy (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• With respect I am left to wonder if I am the only editor in this discussion who actually understands the purpose of encyclopedias and reference works in general and Wikipedia in particular. Is it not at its core function for Wikipedia to help elucidate, educate, and expand the knowledge and understanding of those who consult it? To start with as for language, most words in English have more than "one meaning" so to "limit" the usage of each word in WP to a single "mundane meaning" (whatever that is supposed to "mean" in any particular context and who is supposed to determine that meaning) is just about the most unencyclopedic and counterproductive practice I can possibly imagine. English is, like most languages, complex and often nuanced, and to try to force it to be otherwise only muddles "meaning" and understanding, not enhances it. In the case of "stipulate" there are five definitions listed for it here which are dependent on context. For the word "admit" (admitted), by the way, there are TEN such definitions listed for it here.

You will note that WP also has an article entry for the meaning of "stipulation" n. (stipulate v.) in US litigation law and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Title III, Rule 8(b)(4)) where the accident took place and the lawsuits were filed which I have wikilinked to in the entry under discussion here so that in the event anyone does not fully understand its usage in this context an explanation which will explain and educate (i.e., expand their knowledge) is just a click away. (See also for instance Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2007), United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 889 (D.C. Cir. 2010), Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988), and Fisher v. First Stamford Bank and Trust Co., 751 F.2d 519, 523 (2d Cir. 1984)). (The procedures in New Zealand do not apply here.) Nobody is required to do so, of course, but it is there and available for anyone to use. Nobody is suggesting "that we should force the reader to learn a new word, even if you think you're doing him a service". However one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is its system of internal "wikilinks" of which there are literally tens of millions within the the almost five million articles in the project, and they are there as a service to its readers by providing immediate and easy access to further information available within the project to aid those readers who want to avail themselves of it. This is not being "paternalistic", but instead is meeting the objective of the project which is the help educate, elucidate, and broaden the knowledge and understanding of its readers, not to limit it which would be paternalistic. Centpacrr (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your views are in direct conflct with WP:TECHNICAL, notably its second paragraph. You have provided no evidence that Wikipedia policy, or any other community consensus, supports your views in a way that should supersede WP:TECHNICAL, and yet you ask us to accept them because you say they are true. That's not how issues like this are resolved at Wikipedia. There's not much else that need be said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary the meaning is absolutely clear from the context, word usage ("admitted" is also included), and the wikilink to stipulation fully cures any potential WP:TECHNICAL issue. You are also ignoring WP:BOLD as an overriding Wikipedia policy although in this case including this term (especially when "admitted" and the wikilink are also present) is hardly necessary to be invoked as well. Those who come to Wikipedia for information deserve more than just a pablumized version of it. Centpacrr (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is about process, not content, and it certainly does not override WP:TECHNICAL. WP:BOLD allowed you to add "stipulate" without discussing it first. Beyond that, it does not support the use of the word in any way. Perhaps you meant WP:IAR? But it's an improvement, at least you're trying to use policy/guideline instead of lofty philosophical arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In another attempt to accommodate both your concerns and mine I have tweaked the text slightly to change it from a verb ("stipulated") to a noun ("stipulation") which has only one definition (it is completely consistent with its usage here) and I have also added two new reference citations. As I was the OP of this paragraph in the article I did not have any obligation to first "discuss" the language I used in posting and developing it in advance -- no editor does. The burden for that would have been on the editor from New Zealand (Akid Guy) who unilaterally changed my language "without discussing it first". Also you should be aware that the biggest part of the story of this derailment in the months and years to come will no longer be the accident itself, but the results of the NTSB and FRA investigations and process and outcomes of the many lawsuits arising from it. For that reason you should get used to more "technical" legal language from both areas appearing in the article in the future added by myself and others as those events will be mostly technical and legal in nature. Also please be aware that WP:TECHNICAL is not a Wikipedia "policy" but just a "guideline" which permits exceptions. These are two very different things. Centpacrr (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: Sir, from the outset you have accused me of failing to comprehend that an American legal meaning of "stipulation" exists. You are mistaken, Sir. I am 65 years old, and have understood from the start that that definition exists, although I was hazy at that time about the correct phrasing. What you are failing to grasp is that by using the phrase, "the company admitted fault by stipulating that the train was speeding", you are giving it the normally understood meaning of setting a condition that must be agreed to. That is why I called you on it at the start by saying that the usage was "inappropriate". You are failing to grasp that the proper phrasing when used in the legal sense, is "stipulating to [a fact or assertion]" or "stipulated to [a fact or assertion]".

Let me make it even clearer. Your use of "stipulating that" gives an entirely different meaning than the legal expression "stipulating to", and will confuse the average reader, as it confused me. The sentence should be changed to, "the company admitted fault by stipulating to the fact that the train was speeding". See:

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/stipulate-to-a-factual-basis.955371/

http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/why-not-stipulate-to-a-forensic-science-result/

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/rule-403-old-chief-and-stipulations-to-prior-convictions/

The mis-phrasing is only one of my objections. I have stated the others already. This is so contentious that it's better that the usage be dropped altogether. Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, sir, why you were confused by the usage of this term remains a puzzlement to me as it was clearly being used in its legal context. Any federal civil action is started in a US District Court by the filing of a complaint (FRCP Title II, Rule 3; Title III, Rule 8(a)(1-3)) to which each respondent/defendant is required to file a timely answer to that complaint (Title III, Rule 8(b)(1)) in which each such party states in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it (Title III, Rule 8(b)(1)(a)) and admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by the opposing party plaintiff (Title III, Rule 8(b)(2)). If any such respondent/defendant intends in good faith to deny only part of the allegations it must admit the part(s) not denied as being true (Title III, Rule 8(b)(4)). By doing so all the parts alleged in the complaint that a respondent/defendant admits to be "true" thereby constitute stipulations between the parties that these claims are not in dispute and thereby binds them and the Court to accept these as proven. (See as precedent for this Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2007), United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 889 (D.C. Cir. 2010), Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988), and Fisher v. First Stamford Bank and Trust Co., 751 F.2d 519, 523 (2d Cir. 1984)). That is exactly what I wrote that Amtrak did in the filing of its answers in Berman v NPRC and Iban et al v NPRC on July 10. Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Like Mandruss, I am now backing away from this topic entirely. It's impossible to debate with a brick wall editor, who even when shown to have employed improper phrasing, has now taken to misrepresenting my level of understanding and in the latest edit, has changed the wording yet again so as not to admit he was wrong. Akld guy (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed the wording in good faith from your "the fact" to "as truth" to conform to the exact wording contained in Title III Rule 8(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on which the party defendant's stipulated admission of compensatory liability is based in its answers to the plaintiff's complaints in these cases. I don't really know why that distresses you, but there is nothing else I can do about that it seems. Centpacrr (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You have no consensus here, only two editors who would rather live with bad content than pursue an RfC or other time-consuming dispute resolution process. Since, as I said, your views confllict with community consensus, you will spend the rest of your Wikipedia career re-fighting this battle to protect that language, unless you eventually lose it. I suspect this is not the only such case with you. I hope it's worth it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• In order to try to satisfy your concerns, I have now provided as support within this one sentence factual entry (of which I am the OP contributing editor) about two key stipulated admissions of fault and compensatory liability made by Amrtak contained in pleadings the company filed on July 10 in its answers to two federal civil lawsuits both five verifiable published reference citations (currently numbered 47-51) as sources as well as wikilinks to three other WP articles (Stipulation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) non of which you are anybody else have refuted. So far as I can tell, your only objection to anything in the sentence is to my usage of the term "stipulating (as true)" (which alone is supported by two of the wikilinks and two of the numbered citations) apparently because it is being used in its technical legal definition as opposed to some "mundane" definition. I have explained in great detail above exactly why I have correctly used this term in this context as it has a specific legal meaning that relates to the import of Amtrak's legal action (i.e., that these claims made by the plaintiffs are not being disputed by Amtrak and thereby bind both them as the defendants and the Court to accept these as proven) which is the subject of the entry I made.

As far as I can tell, the only basis of your objection is that you don't like the use of an exact "technical legal" term in a sentence about a "technical legal" filing because it is "technical" and "legal". However so far you have not provided any evidence that anything contained in my one sentence contribution is either inaccurate or unsupported by the multiple verifiable references sources and inline links to other WP articles, but instead appear to be misreading a WP guideline as if it were an inflexible "WP Policy" which it is not. Technical terms are used throughout Wikipedia in technical contexts which is exactly the case here. WP policy states that guidelines anticipate and permit "exceptions". So with respect sir, just who is the one being unreasonable about its usage here? My views do not "conflict with community consensus", they are just different than are yours and one other editor in New Zealand (which also has a different legal system).

WP:AGF is a core policy and principle of Wikipedia for a purpose. We are all volunteers here attempting to improve the project by providing those who use it -- including ourselves -- with accurate verifiable information. Often that includes "technical" terms when they are the most appropriate and correct in the context of what is being written about. Even though I disagree with your position here on using the word "stipulate" for the reasons I have explained, I have made multiple attempts to modify the language of my one sentence contribution to satisfy you which you are apparently still rejecting, and despite the invective you have directed in my direction as to the supposed basis of my views and motives, I am still assuming good faith on your part. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would at least do the same for me and our other fellow members of the Wikipedia Community. Centpacrr (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never doubted or questioned your good faith. This is a type of conflict that is not uncommon at Wikipedia, between an expert in a particular field and common editors. The expert is unable to see things from the perspective of the average reader, who cares little about the arcane details of the expert's field. The expert does not consider such details arcane at all; from his perspective, they are common knowledge, and he feels that they are essential to the article. And, as you've shown, he feels it's his duty to educate readers about his field, whether or not they want to learn about it.

As I said at the start, for example, very few readers care what court is involved here, those who do can easily find it in the source, and that factoid is not essential to a lay understanding of the basic legal situation around this accident. To common editors, that means it should be omitted. But you are unable to see that; if you're not a lawyer, you somehow have knowledge of law far above the average person, so you might as well be one.

This difference in perspective is not reconcilable, and, in such cases, an editor comprising a minority of one should be able to defer and move on; that's the hardest part of Wikipedia editing. The expert feels that his expert knowledge supersedes that concept; that, since he is the only one presenting expert level arguments, it doesn't matter how many editors oppose him. Wikipedia says that the stronger argument should win, but it doesn't tell us how to decide the stronger argument when there is no uninvolved arbiter present. In practice, in such cases, it necessarily comes down to simple numbers, unless the minority want to take the issue to a higher level. Ours is a fundamental disagreement about how Wikipedia works, and it leaves little room for communication; therefore, I suggest that we stop trying to communicate. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The issue here is not just the "admissions" being made by Amtrak, but also -- and far more importantly -- to make clear to the reader that those admissions have specific legal implications and consequences. We are also only talking about one word in one sentence here, not a legal treatise, and the way it is now written provides both the casual reader with a clear understanding that Amtrak had admitted that TR 188 was speeding when it derailed and that the company was liable for compensatory damages, but it also provides readers who are interested with an understanding of what the specific legal consequences of that are by way of citations and wikilinks to other WP entries. So in one sentence not just one but both types of readers are served. That is neither paternalistic nor does "force" anyone to go beyond what they are interested in knowing "for their own good".

The function of WP and other reference works is to both inform and educate. While one reader may not be interested in everything contained in this or any other entry, that does not mean that there are not many others who are interested in such detail. Again WP is not designed for just the lowest common denominator. Writing it as if it were is both dismissive and greatly underestimates the universe of Wikipedia's users.

As for including the name of the Court in which this was filed, Mackensen makes a very good case for doing so in his comment above saying: "Regarding the court name, I've seen far too many Wikipedia articles where the court name is omitted and then either the source goes away or gets edited into oblivion. I think it makes sense to mention the court (we do have an article on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, incidentally), for two reasons: protect against the erosion already mentioned, and to give the reader a quick sense of which level of the US court system is involved." Centpacrr (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What originally concerned me was the incorrect phrasing "stipulating that" and Centpacrr's inability to grasp my point that he was inappropriately using it. However, I'm glad to see that the result of all this is that "admitted fault" now appears while allowing him to retain a phrasing of "stipulating" that suits him. I can live with the current wording. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and acceptance of the current wording although with respect I do not agree that "stipulating that" was "incorrect phrasing" in the legal context in which I used it. Centpacrr (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Article represents selective and biased POV.

The end of the fourth paragraph of the "Derailment" section cites an article which is biased and self-serving as to Amtrak. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/amtrak-says-it-was-just-months-away-from-installing-safety-system.html?_r=0 . Quoting that article, "If the system [PTC; Positive Train Control] had been operational, “there wouldn’t have been this accident,” said Representative Robert A. Brady, Democrat of Pennsylvania.". PTC, by design, required a very complex net of data that needed not merely equipment on-board, but also on the tracks. Much is made of the requirement for allocated radio frequencies, for instance. But the Philadelphia derailment could have been averted by a far simpler system that operated as a limiter to the train speed: It is possible to imagine a GPS-driven system, akin to a car's GPS navigation, that keeps a database of the speed limit of every piece of track in America, and will automatically identify where the train is, and limit the train's speed to that authorized value, for each location. Such a system would not, of course, avoid all the events a full PTC system would; However, the Philadelphia derailment was almost certainly of a type (simple overspeed) that even a relatively simple device could have avoided. And, such a device would not require any sort of (complex) interconnect with any other hardware off the trains. The article claims that a PTC system was authorized in 2008, but was not activated by mid-2015. I think that there have probably been media references to such a possibility of a much-simpler control: Lest this article become a mere apologist for Amtrak, it should identify simpler methods mentioned by the news media that would, if followed, have prevented the accident here. This is probably yet another case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Sluefoot (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect the above posting seems to be advocating including in the main space the OP's speculation about an imaginary GPS based system without providing citations to any sources whatsoever that support even the existence of any such a system let alone one developed and in use on railroads. It seems to me that doing would be POV of the most egregious sort. What is included is the stated position of Amtrak officials as reported (with citation) in the New York Times which is not the POV of the editor who added it but of Amtrak's position on the issue which is certainly appropriate to recognize and include. Centpacrr (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Even here in Auckland, trains have had GPS devices for years that calculate the position and inform passengers of the name of the next station via LED display attached to the ceiling of each carriage. Unfortunately, the earlier devices used to lose signal in tunnels, leading to an error message (may have been 'Acquiring GPS signal' - I've forgotten). That problem has been overcome in the new EMU electric units that went into service last year, possibly by incorporating a time delay to keep the display static until the train emerges from the tunnel and GPS signal is re-acquired. So Sluefoot's problem is going to be, what happens in tunnels? Akld guy (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically, tunnels won't be a problem. In part, that's because trains don't have to make drastic speed changes in them, and in addition the locomotive will also have its own speed/distance system build in independent of GPS signals (that the GPS box can use as an inertial navigation system while GPS signals are temporarily unavailable). Probably the New Zealand system you are referring to didn't have access to the locomotive's signals, since it was presumably just installed as a powered-box in each passenger car, relying solely on GPS signals to acquire speed and distance. Sluefoot (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NO!!! Every system that has not yet been implemented and functioning is an "imaginary" system. Even the PTC system the Congress authorized is still "imaginary", because it doesn't yet work. And, Amtrak knew in 2008 that it wouldn't be ready for many years. They knew they could have implemented, in parallel, a GPS-driven system far simpler and less costly, and one that could probably be installed in 2-3 years, rather than the 7+ years that PTC has already taken. And no, I did NOT object to the inclusion of Amtrak's POV: I objected to the inclusion of that material, ALONE, as if nobody knew that another method was possible. We can't include what reliable sources have not yet written, but I do not advocate that. I suggest searching for sources that refer to such examples of "the road not taken". You have misrepresented my words on that, when you implied otherwise. Sluefoot (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We aren't here to post our personal opinions or arguments on what we believe or claim that someone or some entity "knew." Unless you have a reliable source to support these claims, they don't belong on this talk page. It's not a discussion or debate forum. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what you said, such discussion DOES "belong on this talk page": I am describing the kind of balancing material that this article needs, the kind that Amtrak would prefer not to be included. I think it is quite appropriate for an editor to notice and identify on the Talk page biases (including unbalanced POV) in any given article where they exist, and to initiate edits that repair such biases. Don't try to silence this discussion. Sluefoot (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Balancing material" requires reliable sources. If you don't have any reliable sources to cite here, then you're just making hypothetical and opinionated personal arguments. That is not what Wikipedia is for. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: Pay close attention to this cite, an Emergency Order from the Federal Railroad Administration, saying: "WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today issued an Emergency Order (EO 29) to Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNCW) to take specific, immediate steps to ensure its train crews do not exceed speed limitations. The EO requires Metro-North to modify its existing signal system to ensure speed limits are obeyed and to provide two qualified railroad employees to operate trains where major speed restrictions are in place until the signal system is updated. - See more at: http://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/federal-railroad-administration-issues-emergency-order-metro-north-railroad-speed#sthash.swfDkOG0.dpuf " So! The Federal Government is on the ball! Oh, wait...that EMERGENCY order is dated...wait for it...December 6, 2013!!! about 18 months BEFORE the Philadelphia derailment. Also, "NorthBySouthBaranof", I saw that your Wikipedia page identifies you as a Federal Government Employee. I think you have a massive conflict of interest, that could conceivably motivate you to "adjust" this article. Sluefoot (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing here is called original research and synthesis. You have taken a news release 18 months before an event, and drawn a purported link between it and the event. This may be very interesting, and it may even be true. But we may not do it on Wikipedia unless a reliable source has already published it. Original research is prohibited. If there are reliable sources making this connection, then and only then may we consider including discussion of it in this article. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no rule against "original research" by WP editors, per se: In other words, what I do in my spare time is my business. This is from the WP:NOR (no original research) page: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

Rather, there is a rule against INCLUDING IN WP ARTICLES (not mere talk pages) such "original research". As you can easily see, I have not (yet) violated that, if for no other reason that I have not yet attempted to actually EDIT the main article; just the Talk page. Effectively, you've accused me ("But we may not do it on Wikipedia...") of doing something I have not yet done! I could quite legitimately cite the Federal Railroad Administration's "emergency" December 6, 2013 order: It is from a "reliable source" (it's verifiable), it's on topic (overspeed) and it is quite relevant as an example of the FRA's scrutiny of railroads system at the time the Philadelphia derailment occurred. In fact, I will do so. If you have any objection to the inclusion of a reference to that FRA order, speak it now. Sluefoot (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not object to using it as a reference that there have been previous issues with overspeed trains. I would, of course, object to using it to in any way suggest a relationship between the two incidents, or to in any way suggest or insinuate anything about what Amtrak should or should not have done, in the absence of any reliable sources which link the two incidents. That would be a textbook example of prohibited original synthesis of published material. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not work for Amtrak or any related agency and have no conflict of interest. Rather, it appears that you have a personal ax to grind on the issue and wish to insert your personal opinions about what should have been done. Wikipedia is not a platform for your personal opinions. It's an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You work for the Federal Government, and thus you have an apparent conflict of interest. Like defends like. And it isn't whether YOU think you have a conflict, the issue is whether a reasonable person would believe you could have a bias. The Federal law 28 U.S.C. 455 covers conflicts of interest of judges, which is a good analogy to use. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 section "a" says: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." I reasonably question your impartiality. It goes on from there. And you simply invent out of thin air your claim, "Rather, it appears that you have a personal ax to grind on the issue...". I've never had a bad trip with Amtrak, including no unreasonable delays, no crashes, etc. I may object to their wastage of taxpayers' money, but that is a "bias" that I presumably share with all taxpayers. And when I say that this article should have balanced sources, I am not merely expressing my opinion, I am also being consistent with WP policy: If you doubt that, search for WP:Balanced POV at the WP prompt. And no, I've never suggested that material be added to the article from other than "reliable sources". But that's not enough to merely have "reliable sources": It is easy to make a strongly biased article by selectively choosing some references and omitting others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluefoot (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is not "apologist for Amtrak," it's presenting what has been written in reliable sources. If you are so certain that "simpler methods mentioned by the news media... would have prevented the accident," I'm unsure as to why you aren't presenting these mentions here so that those sources can be evaluated. Presenting them here for discussion is far more productive than lambasting the article's previous editors on the talk page by implying that they have a "selective and biased POV." NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully. I said "Article represents selective and biased POV": The editors have been (as you said) "presenting [some of] what has been written in reliable sources". (I did not say the editors themselves have a "selective and biased POV.) But the article fails to include any balancing POV. I will look for that, as you suggest. But I shouldn't be the only one doing so. Sluefoot (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, sir or madame, Wikipedia is not really the place to promote anyone's own personal conspiracy theories. That is really POV of the most egregious sort. You accuse an editor of "...an apparent conflict of interest. Like defends like. And it isn't whether YOU think you have a conflict, the issue is whether a reasonable person would believe you could have a bias." However since your user page is completely blank, none of us know what your potential conflicts of interest at all. This is why "original research" is banned on the project.

I also notice on your Contributions page that with the exception of one edit to the talk page for Nixie Tube on August 24, your comments in here today are the only postings you have made under this account. Would not a "reasonable person" thus easily conclude that such an account may well be a sockpuppet created to hide whatever your biases, conflicts of interest, or POV might be which apparently are considerable. Might you, for instance, be a disgruntled current or former Amtrak or Federal government employee, a lawyer representing a client with a case against Amtrak, or someone else with a significant conflict of interest? How does anyone know where you are coming from, or what axe you have to grind in this matter?

Both NorthBySouthBabynof and I have provided considerable background on our user pages which you admit you have looked at to make a judgement about NorthBySouthBaranof. We and many other editors create these pages as a courtesy to help others evaluate their bona fides. A little transparency on your part would be helpful for us to do the same about you. Centpacrr (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's misguided and inappropriate. No editor needs bono fedes, bona fides, or anything else, provided they conform to Wikipedia policy. Everyone in this thread needs to maintain focus on content, not editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The point of potential "conflict of interest" of an editor based on information on a user page was originally raised by the OP, not me. I simply pointed out that if this is going to be that editor's basis to challenge the views or another editor, he/she should not do so anonymously. Centpacrr (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And that was incorrect. What you should have pointed out was that we should maintain focus on content, not editors. Instead, you validated and reinforced the behavior by repeating it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes content is certainly paramount, but I also find that utter anonymity in editing in WP (or any reference work) to be a fundamental weakness in them, not a strength, as it can often lead to both misinformation and mischief. But then again that's just my personal view as someone who has been writing history and other types of non-fiction books (7) and articles (thousands) for a living for decades and always do so under my own name. You are, of course, free to have a different view although I note your own userpage contains a great many userboxes and other information about yourself for which I commnd you. The OP in this case seems to me to have deliberately created a new, probably sockpuppet, user account in order to be as anonymous as possible while accusing other editors of conflicts of interest and misleading POV based on their disclosed backgrounds. Centpacrr (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

While I might even agree with you about the anonymity thing, those who run WP have clearly allowed the appointment of hundreds of super-powerful Administrators who are, themselves, anonymous. WP is famously subject to its articles being controlled by special interests, usually ones in which the people who feel strongly are (relatively) few but powerfully motivated, on one side of the issue, and the rest are ordinary people with little or no interest, on the other side. Guess who wins? I should also note that WP's motto is something like, "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". But that can't be true, because I've heard that people can't edit from anonymous web browsers, VPN's, Tor, and other sources. (If truly anonymous editing were acceptable, nobody would attempt to obstruct edits in that way; merely revert them later if they represent a problem.) If the policy is truly that "anybody" can edit, the management should enforce the "...that anyone can edit" by allowing such editing. I should also point out that it wasn't really me that raised the matter of conflict of interest: I am merely the person who NOTICED and spoke of the conflict of interested based on NorthbySouth's admission that he is a federal government employment. His unwillingness to admit that this amounted to such a conflict doesn't mean that the conflict doesn't exist. He didn't have to expose that information, but he chose to do so, and having done so he's raised a valid basis for reasonable people to believe that such a conflict exists. Your speculations on my motivation for doing so are desperate and laughable. When I do, finally, make edits of the actual article, I will source them well. (even though I probably won't be able to format them well, since my experience is so little I don't really know how to format references; I would appreciate if those of you who know how to do such formats will correct my amateurish efforts.) See below in the next subject for the description of the first edit I plan to do. Sluefoot (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• As I noted above, as a long time professional writer/author of non-fiction books and articles on North American railroad history (4 books on that topic) as well as in other fields, all of which I do under my own name, I find that anonymous editing in WP as well as in any reference works -- and especially management by anonymous WP admins ("sysops") -- is a serious weakness, not a strength, of the project. If as you indicate you are indeed a new WP user and "Sluefoot" is not a sockpuppet account set up for the purpose of masking your POV and/or potential conflicts of interest in editing this article I will accept that my suspecting so as being a false assumption on my part.

As for NorthbySouth's so-called "admission" (it's actually a statement) that he is a "federal government employee" as a basis for your accusing him of unacceptable bias and conflict of interest is really an unwarranted stretch. The US government has almost 4.2 MILLION employees working in every possible field of endeavor and that is hardly a monolithic group. He identifies himself as a professional museum or heritage worker with degrees in journalism and recreation and indicates particular interest in wilderness and national parks in the west including Alaska. None of that indicates to me any sort of potential conflict of interest on his part as a "Federal employee" with regard to discussing a railroad accident in Philadelphia. Thus painting him as unreliable or fatally biased in his views in here seems to me, with respect, to be a false assumption on your part as well. Centpacrr (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Admission by Amtrak administration

Searching the MSM news articles on the Philadelphia train crash, I find that usually they focus on the PTC (Positive Train Control) system, and how expensive and difficult it was to install, and how they were delayed in installing it due to the need to license certain radio frequencies. Presented in that way, that sounds plausible, and it is certainly the most positive spin that Amtrak officials might like to promote, in order to divert as much blame as possible from them or their equipment and lower staff. But I have found an eye-opening article, apparently from the reliable source Philadelphia Inquirer (Philly.com) http://articles.philly.com/2015-05-16/news/62192679_1_amtrak-train-train-188-train-control-system that states "If Amtrak Train 188 had been heading to Philadelphia from New York City, it would not have derailed at the sharp Frankford Junction curve, because an automatic braking mechanism has been in place for years on the southbound side of the tracks to stop a speeding train. But Amtrak never installed the same electronics on the northbound side, so Train 188 was able to enter the curve where the speed limit is 50 m.p.h. at more than 100 m.p.h.". The article goes on to say:

"The positive train control system would have prevented Tuesday's derailment, National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt said this week. So would the existing system, if it had been installed on the northbound side, railroad engineers say. Boardman said he and other top Amtrak management were unaware the speed-control mechanism was not in place on the northbound tracks before Tuesday night's crash. "I didn't know that particular condition existed until this occurred," Boardman said. "We probably would have changed it, but we didn't know about it." Engineers for Amtrak and other railroads operating on the Northeast Corridor, the nation's busiest rail route, were well aware of the anomaly." [end of quote]

The existing WP article mentions the PTC system and how it might have avoided the derailment, but it does not even give a hint that there was any other sort of deficiency known (or unknown) to management which, if it had been rectified, would also have avoided the accident. This WP article is, therefore, unbalanced as to POV. These facts should be brought to the attention of the reader to more accurately understand what Amtrak's staff had done wrong to precipitate the derailment. Sluefoot (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I just discovered another article, http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=305749951 which said, "Under orders from the Federal Rail Administration, Amtrak installed Automatic Train Control on the northbound side of the tracks shortly after the wreck and was examining other potentially dangerous curves where it could be used along the Northeast Corridor. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150602_Lawmakers_to_grill_Amtrak_for_first_time_since_derailment.html#MUaOEWzlGSRWYWCv.99 ". In other words, don't bother claiming that there was some sort of unknown and unavoidable impediment to this installation. It could have been done years ago. Sluefoot (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are arguing against here except strawmen, because nobody here has said anything remotely resembling what you're ostensibly denouncing. We can certainly include mention of the fact that Amtrak's management said they weren't aware of the gap, and that the problem was corrected shortly after the accident. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

None of this is a secret, is already discussed in the article, and is sourced in footnote citations 17, 18, 19 and 20. Centpacrr (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The "impediment", by the way is not "false" nor is it really "technical". It is primarily the failure of the Congress to adequately fund US transportation infrastructure in general -- and railroads in particular. It has been estimated that a fully operational nationwide PTC system would cost upwards of $14B to complete and close to another $1B to maintain and operate on an annual basis. Congressional funding of Amtrak is barely $1B/yr for everything it does. (China in comparison invests up to $125B annually in its rail systems.) Centpacrr (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No! Congress' funding of Amtrak was plenty to install the ATC (Automatic Train Control) at that location. Amtrak simply failed to do that, because their eyes were on the shiny object called PTC (Positive Train Control". So don't try to claim that Amtrak's funding was the cause of this accident. Funding is simply the perennial excuse always raised by government agencies that screw up in some way. Sluefoot (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Above, I said "Lest this article become a mere apologist for Amtrak, it should identify simpler methods mentioned by the news media that would, if followed, have prevented the accident here. This is probably yet another case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good"". Fortunately, I have found evidence of precisely that kind of simpler method, called "Automatic Train Control", that if it had been installed at that location (and was in fact installed, presumably days after the accident, in response to that accident) would have prevented that accident. Therefore, I will add reference to it in the article, and not merely in a Reference that few people will ever see. To me, the future existence of the PTC system is no excuse: Amtrak had known since 2008 (since PTC was authorized by Congress) that PTC wouldn't actually exist for many years. Amtrak management clearly made a terrible decision to omit installing ATC at that location. Presumably, Engineer Bostian knew of the absence of that hardware at that point. It is worthwhile looking for media coverage of the question: (Redacted) As for your claim that this matter was "already discussed in the article": But https://billypenn.com/2015/07/07/two-months-since-amtrak-188-derailed-whats-changed-and-why-big-problems-remain-its-actually-cheaper-to-kill-people/ noticed that "The company also is quick to point out that in the immediate aftermath of the crash, it installed (read: fixed) a “code change point” in the signal system on the eastbound tracks just west of the Frankford Curve, meaning that trains traveling east from Philadelphia to New York approach the curve at 45 mph in accordance with the speed limit there. They’re not so quick to point out that this technology was previously required." [end of quote] Sluefoot (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted an unsourced, unsupported statement about a living person which has no place either in an article or on a talk page. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't you dare! This is a TALK PAGE, NOT an encyclopedia page! You may want to defend him, but my comment was in no way libelous or provably false. You display your clear biases in this way. You already have demonstrated a conflict of interest based on your voluntary disclosure of your employment, and you probably have another, secret conflict that you just demonstrated by manipulated my reasonable comments on this Talk page. It is very likely your kind of biases which have kept this article nearly free of any references to Brandon Bostian (Redacted) Cite your justifications immediately. Sluefoot (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are accusing an identifiable named person of serious crimes without providing any source for this accusation. You may not use this talk page to make unsupported attacks on living people. Please read the Biographies of Living Persons policy - we are an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and unsourced negative claims about living people are categorically prohibited from any page on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't accuse anyone. See this, from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/no-evidence-amtrak-train-hit-philadelphia-332735 "But Sumwalt said on Sunday that if the train was operating as it should, it would have taken a deliberate move by the engineer for the train to gain speed." Newsweek has a lot of experience in the news field. This quote clearly involves a description of a plausible "deliberate move by the engineer for the train to gain speed". I have done no more than what Newsweek did. I don't intend to make any claim in the article itself, and I haven't made one here, either: Rather, I believe that I made clear that edits should be made from material published by the media (or other reliable sources) on that subject. You apparently don't like that, which is why you took it upon yourself to play cop and invent rules that you find convenient to enforce. Sluefoot (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The complete context for your quote is as follows: The NTSB has not ruled out mechanical issues, human error or a deliberate act by the engineer, among other factors. But Sumwalt said on Sunday that if the train was operating as it should, it would have taken a deliberate move by the engineer for the train to gain speed. "The only way that an operable train can accelerate would be if the engineer pushed the throttle forward," Sumwalt said on CNN's "State of the Union."

It would be correct to state that the NTSB has not ruled out the possibility of a deliberate act. It would not be correct to use the quote to support your claim that Bostian is "almost-certainly responsible" for the derailment, because that's not remotely what Sumwalt said. We are not a tabloid, nor do we play host to speculation about what people may or may not have done. We are an encyclopedia, and we can afford to wait for the independent investigative process to reach conclusions about what occurred to cause this derailment. Once that investigative process has been completed, reliable sources will no doubt report upon those conclusions and this article will be chock-full of those conclusions. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey folks, can we dial this back a little bit? This discussion is contributing more heat than light and isn't improving the article. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason it "isn't improving the article" (yet) is that I have chosen to discuss the issues prior to doing what, to some people, are evidently controversial edits. Not that they should be controversial, but seemingly they have turned out to be so. If you are suggesting that I should go ahead and make my edits now, that is okay to believe and to say. I hear you. But you ought to address the material that has just been redacted by NorthbySouth: "Did Bostian know that this was one of the few, and perhaps the only, locations on this route where a train could be deliberately crashed?". First, note that I framed it in the form of a question, not a statement. Secondly, I was referring to a search for media-published material that the news media (or others) may have already covered, and if so, could be legitimately covered in this article. Clearly, some people don't like to see references to Bostian in this article, which explains why his role is almost entirely ignored here. There are probably powerful reasons (involving Political Correctness) why some people want to maintain that status quo. Bostian is fairly clearly the only human (I am excluding faulty railroad equipment, here) who could possibly be immediately responsible for the crash. If it is reasonable to say that the accident wouldn't have happened if they had installed PTC (or ATC), why isn't it reasonable to look into the media's handling of Bostian possible guilt? Sluefoot (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical "questions" which ask whether or not a living person committed murder are not permitted. The role of Bostian in the derailment is as yet unknown, and as an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, we can afford to wait for the investigatory process to take its course. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WP is NOT the place for speculation -- especially in the main space -- about anything. The NTSB, FRA, Amtrak, the Congress, DoJ, DoT, PENDOT, City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs in lawsuits, and others who have some official and/or legal interest in this event are all conducting investigations into it right now and will be for many months if not years to come before all the questions still pending are answered. Wikipedia, however, is NOT such a party in interest and thus has no business speculating -- let alone "reaching conclusions" -- about anything. What the project does is objectively and dispassionately compile information that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources when that becomes available. The NTSB will eventually issue a report with a "probable cause", litigation -- both civil and, if warranted, criminal -- will be tried, settled, dismissed, or otherwise disposed of, the FRA will issue orders and regulations, the Congress will pass legislation, Amtrak will install new equipment and change operating rules, and other actions will be taken by all the parties in interest. When those things happen they will be recognized and added to the article. But unless and until they do speculation as to what they may be does not belong in here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No ATC on entry to northbound Frankford Curve

I have previously shown that this article has an unbalanced POV because while it mentions Amtrak's statement that the PTC system could have prevented the incident but hadn't been installed due to "regulatory requirements" (lack of radio frequency allocation), nevertheless it doesn't disclose to the reader that a different and simpler system (ATC; Automatic Train Control) was not yet installed on the northbound track, though it had been present and active for years on the southbound track at that curve. Here is the relevant reference establishing this: http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=305749951 . The relevant section states: "The older, less sophisticated safety system - Automatic Train Control - was installed on dangerous curves after a 1990 crash in Boston. But Amtrak officials have said it was only used in areas where the approaching speed limit exceeds the speed that would cause a derailment. That planning did not appear to account for the possibility that a train might be pushed far past the speed limit. Train 188 was traveling over 100 m.ph., past the 80 m.p.h. speed limit approaching the Frankford Junction curve and the 50 m.ph. limit in the curve. Under orders from the Federal Rail Administration, Amtrak installed Automatic Train Control on the northbound side of the tracks shortly after the wreck and was examining other potentially dangerous curves where it could be used along the Northeast Corridor. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150602_Lawmakers_to_grill_Amtrak_for_first_time_since_derailment.html#Eby1UkdosjPIV10P.99 " I invite anyone to insert this reference; being a newbie, it'll take me awhile to figure out how do so otherwise. Sluefoot (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• This, your original edit, isn't acceptable because it contains a non sequitur. PTC does have regulatory delays; right now Congress is considering extending the mandate's effective date because numerous companies, public and private, won't meet it and the FCC's delay in releasing spectrum is a major part of that. ATC is a different technology and isn't subject to that constraint but it isn't installed everywhere, and of course Amtrak wouldn't roll out ATC when it was in the process of rolling out PTC, a far superior system. The missing piece here is whether Amtrak was negligent in not including this curve in the ATC rollout which followed the Back Bay crash (and note that ATC was already active on the Northeast Corridor well before). We'll need a reliable source on that, though the lack of a crash since 1943 on a dense railroad line suggests that the risk was reasonable. That the FRA ordered it installed afterwards doesn't affect that one way or the other. I would expect the final NTSB report to address this in detail. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here, or perhaps I don't understand your comment. I KNOW PTC has regulatory delays. That's why I wrote it the way I did. It's ATC which DOESN'T have regulatory delays, at least not sufficient to prevent it from having been installed within days of the incident. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I also have to laugh when you said, "and of course Amtrak wouldn't roll out ATC when it was in the process of rolling out PTC, a far superior system." Hey, buddy, people DIED precisely because PTC wasn't yet installed, and many others were maimed. Millions of dollars of equipment was destroyed. Are you saying that the mere possibility in 2008 that PTC might be completed in 2015 would justify keeping ATC inactivated for 7 years?!? How many dead bodies do you consider acceptable? Are you really suggesting that Amtrak could justify failing to install ATC, merely because someday PTC will be better?!? Remember the old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good". People DIED because of that principle. It appears you have no problem with that. Sluefoot (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. ATC was never installed on this curve, and there were no plans to do so in 2008, unless you have a source which claims otherwise. There are many places in this country where ATC is not installed, on the Northeast Corridor and elsewhere. As indicated in the article and elsewhere, ATC is installed in those places considered dangerous or otherwise suitable. Amtrak apparently judged that this curve wasn't sufficiently dangerous. The safe operation between 1943-2015 may or may not have justified that view. Without the final word from the NTSB on why the accident occurred, we don't know. As I said, I expect the NTSB to address this issue in its report (conversely, if it does not, that amounts to the NTSB saying that the issue was irrelevant). Regarding the FRA, it saw no need to install ATC on that curve prior to the crash, unless (again) you have a source which says otherwise. That Amtrak was able to carry out the order quickly has no relevance unless it was supposed to have done something and had not done so.

If I may, your mode of engagement on this talk page isn't very helpful to your argument, or the article. Wikipedia needs to be written from sources. What you're lacking is sources prior to 2015 criticizing Amtrak for not expanding ATC on the Northeast Corridor, especially around Philadelphia, or maybe a reliable source urging Amtrak to expand ATC coverage as the PTC rollout was delayed. Otherwise, as I've said elsewhere, it's just original research. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1943 derailment at the Frankford Curve was not even a speed related accident. That train was moving at a speed of 56 miles per hour where the maximum authorized speed was 70 miles per hour when the train became derailed. The derailment was the result of the left front journal of the front truck of PRR1860, the seventh car of the consist, being broken off. Centpacrr (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: NTSB lead investigator Sumwalt's Claim

The section labelled "Investigation" ends with a statement, "Earlier, Sumwalt had said, "for somebody who's been through a traumatic event, this is not at all unusual for human behavior to have the mind blank out things like that, at least for the short term."[1][24][46]" I have to question that statement. I am not questioning that Sumwalt said it; rather, I'm questioning whether he is sufficiently a competent, credible source to have a valid opinion on the issue of trauma-induced amnesia. For example, I found the following source http://www.webmd.com/brain/memory-loss , which said, "It's the stuff movies are made of: After a blow to the head, a person wanders aimlessly, unable to remember who he is or where he came from. While such sudden, profound loss of memory is rare, memory loss is a problem that affects most people, to a degree." "Rare" versus "not at all unusual". I'd say there's a major contradiction here. Sumwalt may be an expert on accidents involving transportation, but that does not mean that he is an expert on trauma-induced amnesia. Further, even Sumwalt himself limits his statement by including the comment, "at least for the short term". Well, it's no longer "the short term", is it?. His may very well have been reasonable speculation at the time he said what he did, days after the incident, but the passage of time (so far, nearly 4 months) has made his opinion stale, to say the least. And no, I'm not saying we should replace his comment with the WebMD quote. Rather, we should decide that Sumwalt's statement was at least questionable when it was made, and it has become apparent over time that it is merely speculative and misleading, particularly since Bostian's claimed loss of memory has not been reported as ending even today. Perhaps there is a more recent, more-applicable news report out there, which makes a more realistic claim about the likelihood of a 3-4-month memory loss. For instance, do any of the passengers who had been on that train report memory loss? Probably not. Sluefoot (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a reliable source questioning Sumwalt? Using WebMD to question Sumwalt, leaving aside WebMD's reliability, would be original research. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You REALLY can't read, can you? Above, I said, "Perhaps there is a more recent, more-applicable news report out there, which makes a more realistic claim about the likelihood of a 3-4-month memory loss.". There's no reason to believe that Sumwalt is the last word on the matter, or certainly not the best. Sluefoot (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Then what's the purpose of your initial, 341-word posting? Sumwalt is the lead NTSB investigator and it makes sense to quote him. If a reliable source takes issue with Sumwalt, or the NTSB's conclusions, then we would include that. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. We have no basis for "questioning" Sumwalt's assertion unless a reliable source did so. That's original research. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick perusal of Google News finds nothing pertinent to this question; perhaps because reliable sources are, like Wikipedia, content to wait for the NTSB's independent investigators to complete their work rather than offering tabloidy speculation, rumormongering or innuendo about what might have happened. Once the NTSB releases its findings about the derailment, we will no doubt have a surplus of reliable sources discussing what happened based on solid scientific and investigatory conclusions from the world's leading accident investigation organization. Until then, we wait. NorthBySouthBabynof (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush here. NTSB accident investigations, issuing of final reports, and making determinations of probable cause(s) usually take a year or more to complete in complex major accidents such as this one. Centpacrr (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)