Talk:Granville rail disaster

Ultimately, 84 people were killed in the accident which included an unborn child.

An accident can have an unborn child?

How about "Ultimately, 84 people, including an unborn child, were killed in the accident."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.158.254.128 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Granville rail disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524140210/http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21061966-5001028,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21061966-5001028,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Granville rail disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605115559/https://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=64391 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=64391

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

removed unsourced content

Hi there - I've removed a section of unsourced content. Diff Indeed, it's been tagged since June 2019 as requiring verification. The info speaks of a "cover-up" and offers an alternative "real reason" and refers to uncited "research for a book". It's not up to wikipedia standards, and I've removed it accordingly. I have also removed some of this info that was placed into the lead today...the editor adding it to the lead noted on my talk page that he/she was merely taking the existing info and summarising in the lead. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cause

The one-sentence second para of the intro is: "The official enquiry found the primary cause of the crash to be poor fastening of the track, which caused the track to spread derailing the locomotive."
However, in the info box the cause is "maintenance of [locomotive no.] 4620."
The info box is incorrect. As stated in the intro, poor track maintenance was the problem, not the locomotive.
The cause in the info box needs to be corrected. I suggest "maintenance of the permanent way".
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

ah - good pick up. Yes, info box should be fixed.

A version of this article from a few months ago had the "official enquiry" findings and then went on to talk of a cover-up(!) about loco maintenance - and had not verifiable sources to back it up. I removed the conspiracy theroy cover-up version from the article. Looks like i missed the info box which still has the conspiracy version, and should be changed??? --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the info box should be changed, Merbabu. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made the change, Merbabu. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Granville Train Disaster Association

The sentence, "For 39 years, the people of the disaster had little to say until the Granville Train Disaster Association Inc. was formed." appears to be incorrect, or at least hyperbole, since this 2007 reference from the article [1] mentions a group called the Granville Memorial Trust. That and the next sentence ("This was to represent the emotions of those affected (including relatives and friends) via Barry J Gobbe OAM JP and Meredith Knight JP...") was inserted [2] by User:Barry J Gobbe, so it looks like a pretty clear WP:COI and needs revision. However it is true that GTDA is involved in an officially sanctioned annual memorial service [3], so we can probably leave a short mention of it. Adpete (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This article has lots of dubious "info". I suggest being bold and fixing up, and removing, as required. I've done a little bit over the last few years towards this. The diff you show also replaced the accepted cause of the accident with an alternative cause which borders on conspiracy theory. I removed that some time ago. Be Bold. --Merbabu (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but that takes time. I will return to it when I have more time, if no one else does it first. Adpete (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)