Talk:1977 Chicago Loop derailment

Use of "Marijuana" in the article.

With respect to the my more-experienced fellow editor, Floydian, I must disagree with this edit of his, on two or three grounds.

• First of all, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of the word Marijuana as "slang". While it is most assuredly not the scientific term, a term can be unscientific without being "slang", and Wikipedia is rife with examples of this. I would agree that "weed" is slang (and would be unacceptable in this context), but marijuana is a perfectly acceptable term, IMO.
• Secondly—and I confess that I am only guessing here, as I have no expertise or even experience in the area—while "cannabis" is the name for the plant whence comes the stuff people smoke, isn't the term restricted to just the plant, and not the chopped up weed? I just know that I've never heard of a "cannabis cigarette", and it sounds strange to me
• Finally, we're writing an encyclopedia for the general population. While "cannabis" is certainly not an esoteric term, "marijuana" is certainly understood by a much larger segment of the population. Given my point in #1, about it not being slang, it seems to me that "marijuana" is actually the preferred term.

As Floydian has been doing this a lot longer than me, and may have some points to make of which I am unaware, I'm going to hold off on reverting right now. But I'm interested in hearing more. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have too much invested in it (just enough to revert somebody trying to use a reference as a reasoning for a specific word choice). Personally, I see "marijuana," in this context, as a POV-term, pro-prohibitionist, embedded in racism and 1930s reefer madness. Cannabis was the term before marijuana and still is today. From what I've seen, the term marijuana cigarette is reserved exclusively to propaganda ads, and the term "joint" tends to be the term used in most places around the English speaking world. Its use in this article infers that either A) the accident was caused by him smoking it, or B) he was loopy because he smoked it, and it should really just say "he was in possession of cannabis".

Whoa! Friend, I can't imagine where that came from! Well, anyway, my reactions to your post:

1. I agree that "joint" is the most used term, at least in the United States. Is "cannabis cigarette" reserved exclusively to propaganda ads? I'll defer to you on this; as I said, I don't recall anyone using the term, and it sounds strange and awkward to me. I'm sure you're correct. But regardless of the factual accuracy of this, I'm not sure how that supports the use of "cannabis cigarette" in the article.
2. While of course I have heard people speak negatively about marijuana, I don't think I've ever heard someone in such a discussion use "marijuana" instead of "cannabis" with the intent of adding a pejorative connotation. In short, to say that "marijuana" is a POV-laden term is completely outside of my experience.
3. Is "marijuana" a pro-prohibitionist term? I not only don't agree with this assertion, I would counter that the opposite is true. The persons in my life whom I hear using the term "cannabis" tend to be the ones most likely to hold a hardline stance against weed (and other drugs); their use of the formal "cannabis" has usually struck me as a snobbish way of ostensibly elevating themselves "above" the rest of us.
4. I don't even know what to say about your assertion that the use of "marijuana" is racist. I suppose that you're saying that the driver was a member of a minority group? I sure didn't know that. I don't recall seeing that in the article. But even if it did say that the driver was African or Mexican or Korean, I wouldn't see the logic behind the assumption that the use of "marijuana" is racist. I am completely perplexed by this assertion.
5. I agree with you that the article implies (not infers, I believe) that the reason for the accident was that the driver was using marijuana, but I honestly (from my own inexperience with any similar editing matters) don't know if that's an issue. I suppose that's not something that's possible to know with absolute certainty, but I think if his blood alcohol level had been 0.13, we would include that in the article, wouldn't we? It wouldn't prove the alcohol caused the accident, but it would be considered an important fact to include. You say we should only say he was in possession of cannabis. The article says Subsequent investigation revealed that Martin had been smoking cannabis . . . . Is this factually incorrect? I don't know. If it's not correct, then I agree with you only his possession should be noted. In fact, if there isn't good reason to believe he had been smoking the weed, then I would go further than you; I would say even his possession would be irrelevant and not suitable for inclusion, any more than would be the possession of something else illegal, such as a sawed-off shotgun or animal pornography (unless, of course, he was whacking off to pictures of dogs screwing). But what are the facts here? I haven't looked into it yet.

Having never come across you before, Floydian, I know I don't know you. But I can't fail to tell you how your points appear to me. Floydian, from what I'm reading here, my impression is that you are the one who has an agenda. I didn't have a problem with using marijuana in the article before, but now I do have a problem with your arguments against it. I will again, in the interest of open and fair-minded discussion, refrain from reverting at this time. But I need to reiterate, I am not only not convinced, I am now prepared to revert, pending some stronger and less emotional arguments. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. As I said, I'm not strongly attached to it at all, and you can feel free to revert at any time. It's purely my opinion, but I believe the term marijuana still carries the same pejorative weight as when the term was coined. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really looking for anything. Just was waiting so that you would have the opportunity to voice your reasoning, thereby preventing me from acting precipitously. I very much respect your willingness to step aside on this one, and regret only that we did not come to a complete accord, which is always my goal. Good meeting you; hope to see you around again sometime. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all much ado about nothing. Use "Marijuana" per WP:SNOW. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Written in the local voice

The train had just left a station? It was sitting on "the turn"? What?

This article makes no sense to someone that is not from Chicago.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Valid points, Maury. I'm not from Chicago, but grew up in Northern Illinois, and spent a good amount of time in Chicago. I've made some significant revisions to the article after reading your post, and would very much appreciate your reaction. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's MUCH better now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are still things I'd like to see clarified. The article uses names, like "Ravenswood Line", but none of the other articles on the Wiki use these terms, and refer to them by the new color codes - in this case "Brown Line". I think we should put the color codes in parens. Additionally, the original author didn't mention any of the station names, nor refer to specific names of the parts of the loop. t think it would also be very useful to add text about the location of the lines relative to the Loop. Ok, so lets start the confusing bits again…

"Evanston Express to run counter-clockwise around the Loop instead of its normal clockwise route"

This is the Purple Line express train, right? I believe this train enters the loop at the north-west corner. In order to travel clockwise, it would have to make a 90 degree left turn and switch onto the inner tracks of the loop, heading east along Randolf. Is that correct?

"This put it on the tracks normally used by the Ravenswood and westbound Lake–Dan Ryan trains"

Ravenswood (Brown?) appears to enter the same north-west corner of the loop from the north. If it travels counter-clockwise (it is not actually stated), it seems it would travel straight through the intersection. Lake-Dan Ryan (Green?) trains run to the west, so this sentence appears to be referring to trains that are exiting the Loop from the outermost line. That is, the Ravenswood and Lake-Dan Ryan trains would normally cross at the north-west corner of the loop. Is all of this correct?

"Ravenswood train, once entering its first turn into the Loop"

So then this statement is entirely confusing. It would seem that Ravenswood does not turn into the loop, so this is either referring to the first corner of the loop (i.e., north-west), or it is referring to the first turn that train takes, which is the south-west corner.

"was required to stop short of the first platform"

What platform? Washington/Wells, or La Salle/Van Burnen? Or Quincy?

"Additionally, this delay meant that the Ravenswood was still in place"

In place where?

"Ravenswood train composed of 6000-series cars was waiting on the tracks, just past this first turn"

Which turn?!

"as the motorman, Stephan A. Martin, had just left a station"

Which station?!?

Now if this were not confusing enough, the Google Maps link puts the site of the accident at the north-west corner of the loop, and the introduction speaks of "Wabash and Lake". So that places the accident location nowhere near anyone's "first" corner!

And if that wasn't enough, the references state the accident took place at "59th Street and Prairie Avenue", which isn't anywhere close to the Loop. But this article appears to reference an entirely difference incident, and any mention of "Wabash Avenue and Lake Street" doesn't appear anywhere.

So I'm still confused by all of this. :-(

Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we must do a better job of being clear for all readers. I have added a map image to help in that. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a question that neither the article nor the source seem to answer...

...did the motorman die?

There's no mention that he was killed in the incident, but there's suggestion of it by omission of any detail of his fate following it, and some of the other details. EG "not possible" to confirm why he continued to apply power after the initial collision (one would think simply asking him would have been a good start), taking testimony on whether he had been smoking pot earlier that day, no mention of whether any punitive action was taken against him... the sorts of things you think might happen in such a case. And it's still possible to do a blood test on someone after they're deceased - indeed, if it might not be possible to carry it out for 12 hours or more after the incident, then you may get clearer results / more reliable evidence of "recent" drug use that way than with a living subject... 91.125.59.216 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

edit: and, further to that, now I've edited some other things in the article text and got to thinking as a result - what ultimately caused the power to be shut off? Damage to the control cables? Loss of electrical supply continuity from mass derailment or shorting of the supply rail? Some automatic crash detection system? Or Martin finally lifting off the controller, whether voluntarily or otherwise? Because if it was still pushed to full-ahead, and the power was still connected, and the control lines were intact, why didn't the rearmost four cars continue to push forwards, compounding the awfulness of the incident in whatever way you'd care to imagine? (And... if he was talking to passengers, then presumably the door to the driver's cab was open ... was everyone looking forwards in that carriage killed? IE, no possible eyewitnesses that could be called to the inquest?) 91.125.59.216 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

NTSB report

I've uploaded the NTSB report to commons: File:NTSB RAR-77-10.pdf. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting reports of drug use by the operator

This Chicago Tribune article states that toxicology tests were performed and the results found no evidence of intoxication.

References