Open main menu


NTSB link doesn't work?Edit

Hey, Mjroots, re special:diff/648653344, how is it broken? --Jeremyb (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It was broken in that it didn't link to the desired page, and there was a warning about an unsecure site. Bare url links are to be avoided if possible in any case. Can understand an IP adding one if they are new to Wiki, but would expect an editor to know at least the bare bones of {{cite web}}. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be quite interested to see a screenshot or further description of the insecure page message.
re {{cite web}}, I've recently relearned some of the parameters but often won't bother to use it when on mobile. (sometimes a bare link is better than nothing. someone else can clean it up) I really wish we had refs fully supported by Wikidata (e.g. only enter details for a book once and then reuse the entry on every article that needs it. I believe this is coming eventually.) and some way to list a ref on an article as a pointer for future editors even if you're not ready to add something from it at the moment. (sometimes I add them on a talk page. but I'd do this more often if their was a standard way to do it) Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Accident or Criminal?Edit

Should this be described as an accident when no motive has been determined or ruled out? No reason has been established why the truck was left on the tracks, and no motive has been ruled out. The driver fled the scene and was arrested, so it is possible it was caused by a criminal act. Redhanker (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly sounding like a pure an accident, but we wait for the NTSB report before saying so for definite. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest reports place the blame squarely on the truck driver. Info added to article, but officially cause is still "under investigation". Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Details of truckEdit

It's hard to make out the remnants of the truck, but supposedly it was some kind of vegetable truck, perhaps a mobile retailer; it appears that it may have been a pick-up truck with a fifth-wheel trailer. The main WP article suggests crumple zones were added to these cab cars after the last major accident, I wonder if this allowed the truck to go under the train a little more than usual and actually assisted in the derailment. It's also interesting how much of the rail line was torn apart. These push configuration trains are a known problem due to being significantly lighter than a locomotive, especially the older Bombardier bi-level coach/cab cars. I understand WP:Notforum but some more research and details can certainly be added to this yet another high-profile Metrolink accident. Ridership history would also be a good indicator of the possible effect on patronage caused by high profile train crashes. B137 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ramirez was driving a 2005 F-450 truck, which was towing a trailer behind it, carrying welding equipment." CBS News. B137 (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@B137: - have you got a ref for the trailer please? Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Cancel that, already mentioned in the ABC 7 source. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Time of incidentEdit

Obviously there's not a full timeline yet but currently 2 NTSB sources contradict eachother. Which should we use at this point? The main investigation page for this incident says 5:44 (early on and still does), Member Sumwalt's first on-site briefing says 5:42 (at 3:20).

btw, how do we cite a specific timestamp within video? use {{rp}}? --Jeremyb (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noting, the scheduled departure time is 5:39. Generally, with little traffic at the beginning of the day, the train leaves on time. The Rice Avenue crossing is 2 miles out of the Oxnard Station. 5:42 seems more logical than 5:44. This is just conjecture with local knowledge. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Details from second on-site briefing (2015-02-25)Edit

Feel free to integrate these somewhere:

  • 3 cars were the newer CEM (crash energy management?) type from Hyundai Rotem. 1 was Bombardier Inc.. (Sumwalt says the bombardier car is older. presumably that means not CEM) (at 5:24)
  • truck operated by "Harvest Management LLC" of Somerton Arizona. (sounds like a smallish business. "40 of everything. 40 drivers, 40 trailers and 40 box-trucks") (at 6:44)
  • Already added this, could be reworded: The NTSB has verified that the forward-facing camera was recording data and the collision itself was recorded by the camera. (at 2:15)

--Jeremyb (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Statements from Tuesday on "stuck" or not, location of truckEdit

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, et al.,

Sources based on Tuesday's (Feb 24th) on-site briefing with NTSB should not be used relating to statements about the truck's position, orientation, relation to the crossing, or whether or not it was stuck. Please ensure that any mentions about those things use more recent information (from Wednesday or Thursday, 25th or 26th). Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? Cause Jeremyb says so? It meets verification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you watched Wednesday's briefing video on youtube? he goes out of his way to mention that various aspects of some media reports have misinterpreted something he covered in the earlier briefing. Not everything in every article is perfect and some things may stand without verification or with mediocre sources if they are not contested. But if they are contested and we have better sources then we shouldn't let the false claims stand just because they have sources too!!
In this case there is clearly a problem with a number of sources based on Tuesday's briefing and we have plenty of more recent sources so we don't need to rely on those incorrect sources. I am asserting that everything in the fairly limited scope I outlined should be considered carefully or at least assumed to be controversial; try to find more recent sources, if you can't find any then ask for help. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
An alternative way to handle this would be adding text on the original interpretations in the immediate aftermath of the event being wrong (and citing the now-deleted references), and spelling out how they were wrong with text based on the more recent references. --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well in case there's a section discussing the current best information or presenting something as an absolute fact rather than discussing what was believed at some point in the past, then we should use the better sources? --Jeremyb (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If a "fact" mentioned in Tuesday's briefing is corrected in Wednesday's briefing, we simply use the most up-to-date source. Older sources with out of date info can be safely removed. Generally, there shouldn't be a need to mention that info was out of date, unless there are major differences. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) The point is that a reader should not see something that says NTSB says it wasn't stuck without context. btw, I may go back and rewatch the original tuesday briefing so I could better describe what confused reporters if we want to cover that. but not going to do it tonight. --Jeremyb (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Split YouTube discussion to its own section below. Please use this section for comments on the original topic and the new section for whether to accept these briefings as reliable sources. --Jeremyb (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

reliability of formal NTSB briefings via YouTubeEdit

split from § Statements from Tuesday on "stuck" or not, location of truck above
(edit conflict)Youtube is not necessarily a reliable source, the burden is on the editor wanting to make the change in finding where a reliable source says that an initial statement is incorrect. I agree with IJBall, that the Tuesday statement should be allowed to stand, and the Wednesday correction (which I have not seen verified by a reliable source here) be included as a follow up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: Youtube is not the source in this case, but the host. The NTSB are the source, and use of video briefings by the NTSB hosted on Youtube fully meets WP:RS, with the caveat that the info is only as good as know at the time of the brief and is liable to correction. Expect a preliminary report sometime in March, and a final report sometime next year. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) If there are relevant policies about sourcing to youtube I'd be happy to read them. In this case the youtube videos I referred to are on the official NTSB youtube account. (which claims to be the "official video channel" and also is heavily linked from the official webpages) Also, the first 2 are linked from the official page for this investigation. (the most recent hasn't been added there yet).
I think it's reasonable to treat these videos as if they appeared directly on --Jeremyb (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If one were to read the archives of RSN one would find that youtube in general is not treated as a reliable source in and of itself as it is not known the accuracy of what is posted, whether a video has been altered or not from the original. If the video is hosted on the official channel of a source, than it is less likely to be altered, but IMHO corroborating reliable sources should be used as additional verification.
Furthermore, the bold removal without consensus of reliable sources while there is a continued discussion, is uncalled for. Are we saying that the publishers of the sources Jeremyb removed are no longer reliable? There was a consensus for the proposal set forth by IJBall to state was said on the 25th and what was said later, citing both. There was no consensus for removal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope someone else weighs in here (with any position) before I do. I probably won't get to it for a day or two. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, its ridiculous to not treat video of an official NTSB briefing, hosted on the NTSB channel, as anything but official information. It is rather shallow thinking to suggest because the youtube name appears in the source URL that it any way impinges the credibility of the source. Trackinfo (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded videos can be altered. While it does help that it was uploaded on the the NTSB, I don't think that it is too much to ask for corroborating reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Please elaborate on exactly how you would expect the video to be altered and on why that would be easier to execute or more likely to happen than modifying a press release posted on the NTSB website. (or are we also not trusting written statements? what if it's in the congressional record or federal register?)

Also, would be nice if you could provide examples of any other official government source subjected to this sort of scrutiny on English Wikipedia. (in a comparable case. not e.g. something like 9/11, Columbia shuttle, or JFK assassination) Thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOYT, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source, & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Youtube again. A non-youtube source is stronger than a youtube source. This the reasoning behind request for corroboration. It is not on me to provide examples, it is on the editor using youtube as a source to follow precedence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOYT this supports my position.
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source: this is old, YouTube has changed a bit since 2008. anyway, it's way too abstract. Not about any specific situation, publisher, article, topic, or video.
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Youtube again this supports my position.
  • "A non-youtube source is stronger than a youtube source. This the reasoning behind request for corroboration." I disagree. To be clear I'm not against corroboration. I simply assert that these particular YouTube briefings deserve the same weight as any other statement from NTSB at this stage of an investigation. (i.e. not compared to a final report) That they happen to be on YouTube is a very minor concern. (as stated earlier they are linked from the investigation's page at, they are from a YouTube account which is often used to publish official videos linked from other NTSB pages and the account claims to be an official account)
  • WP:BURDEN this doesn't appear to be related to reliable sources. (is a section of WP:V) Anyway I see no other editors at all questioning these sources in this case. (please do speak up if you have concerns) IMHO the burden is on you to provide a more nuanced argument against this usage in particular (not just against YouTube in general).
--Jeremyb (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Truck driverEdit

Per WP:BLP, the truck driver should not be described as an "illegal immigrant" until such time that this has been proven. An allegation of such is not enough here. Personally, I'd like to see his name removed, as he is not wikinotable. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanchez-Ramirez meets WP:BLP1E. He has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in the context of this event. As such, he does not warrant an separate article, but does warrant inclusion in this article. Same can be said about the critically injured engineer. That being said BLP still applies, and any information on the individual needs to be verified by reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Amtrak collision near Camarillo station March 1Edit

See new section Ventura County Line § 2015 Amtrak collision. Should be mentioned on this article too I think. Where? (partly its notability is derived from temporal and spatial proximity to the Oxnard derailment. IMHO) --Jeremyb (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? Does it directly relate to the subject? Does it fall within the scope of this subject? I would argue that it does not, and is a separate event (which may not yet meet WP:PERSISTENCE).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Line reopeningEdit

Has the line reopened yet, or is it still closed? Article should state when the line was reopened once this has happened. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

IIRC it opened on Thursday. but should find a source for that. maybe has closed again for last night's incident? --Jeremyb (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No, was apparently open Wednesday morning around 9am. and line didn't close at all for last night?
--Jeremyb (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Cause of derailmentEdit

Pinging Jeremyb and RightCowLeftCoast - I found this story from the L.A. Times. Seems that the cause of the derailment is suspected to be part of the train breaking off. Also there's a bit of controversy as to the safety of the cab cars and the hiring of locomotives to replace them. Is any of this worth putting in this or the Metrolink article? Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be putting in a cause of derailment unless it comes from the FRA or the NTSB. The cab cars would be something to note, as they still use them but just put a BNSF locomotive in front of them. --TJH2018talk 21:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

NTSB docketEdit

The NTSB have released a large number of documents related to the accident. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Return to "2015 Oxnard train derailment" page.