Talk:Great Train Wreck of 1918

Requested move

Great train wreck of 1918 → Great Train Wreck of 1918
Page move to comply with Wikipedia naming conventions: namely, caps for proper nouns — Splintercellguy 18:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Although I am unsure as to whether the names of rail disasters are considered proper nouns, the convention on Wikipedia seems to be to keep them lowercase. See List of rail accidents for numerous examples. Convention on the web in general seems to be divided. Can anyone shed more light on whether or not this should be capitalized? Kaldari 19:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. If you google train wreck of 1918 nashville, there doesn't really seem to be much consensus as to a single name for the event (many of the 'great train wreck of 1918' hits are Wikipedia mirrors)--EG "Great Nashville Train Wreck of 1918" "worst US train wreck, Nashville, Tenn." "1918 July 9, Nashville, Tenn., Train wreck". Makes it seem like they are all more descriptive names than 'proper' ones. Niteowlneils 16:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems to be a simple noun phrase rather than a proper noun, although I could be convinced otherwise. —Michael Z. 2005-06-17 04:52 Z

Dutchman's Grade vs. Dutchman's Curve

Contemporary sources say that the accident occured at "Dutchman's Grade" while modern sources seem to prefer "Dutchman's Curve". I don't suppose it matters much which one we use, but I thought I'd make a note of it anyway. Kaldari 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath section - deleted paragraph

I deleted this:

"Yet because the NC&StL, like all U.S. railroads at the time, was being run by the government under the United States Railroad Administration during World War I, government officials had changed the railroad's former passenger train schedules. In the past these two trains would have met safely far to the west of Nashville later in the morning. But because of the changing of the timetables, these two trains now met somewhere, depending on timing, nearer to Nashville where the possibility for mistakes was more likely. The USRA put, in essence, a gag order on the news of this wreck to try to play down public fears of having the U.S. government run the country's railroads. The Hammond Circus Train Wreck, another serious accident involving a circus train, had happened the previous month under the USRA's watch. The ICC failed to note the changes in scheduling that the USRA had wrought nor did they consider the effect those changes might have had as a contributing factor to this wreck."

In fact, if Train No. 1 had been on time, the two trains would not have met at that point. The contention that there was a USRA cover-up is not supported by any references - the references include do include contemporary news reports.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.90.249 (talk • contribs) 02:06 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid this before I noticed the above, since there was no edit summary. I tried to reedit it to make it less WP:POV, but gave up, and removed it again. I think that there are some facts that could be restored, but probably not in the Aftermath section. Tim PF (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy of Train Wreck

I have an original document from a researcher in Moscow, Russia that documents the disappearance of Allen H Stuber who was a ICRR engineer (began career in 1904). They report his disappearance on July 4th, and the opinion from two sources was that he "knew too much" about the train wreck event. This suggests that the event was intentional because of the knowledge of the event before it actually occurred. There is an implied linkage to story which involved the gunpowder factory workers in connection with the Memphis 4th of July event at East End Park. This information was conveyed by a relative of Allen H Stuber who witnessed. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you upload the document to Wikimedia Commons? I know someone who would be interested in following-up on this. Kaldari (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am reluctant about uploading this document to Wiki Commons because it contains genealogy data who family members are still alive. I'd prefer to send as email attachment to you or whomever is doing the research. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)