Talk:Kirkby train crash

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The aftermath of the Kirkby train crash

• ... that the train driver in the Kirkby train crash (pictured) was found to have been using their mobile phone before the collision?

• Source: "detectives found he’d sent a WhatsApp message at 6.51.34pm, 26 seconds before the crash" [1]

• Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by FozzieHey (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

FozzieHey (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article reached Good Article status within 7 days of nomination. Article is more than 1,500 words in prose, sourced, and neutral. There is one source that is only accessible by paid subscription, and for that, I assume good faith. Earwig returned an unlikely violation of 37.9%. Most of what was flagged were names of certain organization and phrases that were not used in the same context as the source. The hook is interesting and sourced. Image is also found in article and is license-free. A QPQ is not needed at this time as the nominator has less than 5 nominations. lullabying (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• @FozzieHey and Lullabying: wondering if this hook might run afoul of WP:DYKBLP. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it is, though I can see how it possibly could be. @FozzieHey: do you have an alternate hook we could use? lullabying (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  The RAIB report (paragraph 61) states The driver was using his mobile telephone while driving the train. Other paragraphs in the same report (e.g. paras 39, 62, 114) confirm that this mobile phone use was shortly before the collision. I don't see this as a BLP concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  My understanding of WP:DYKBLP was that it was intended to prevent undue hooks on BLP articles like "... that John Doe committed xyz crimes?" The guideline mentions an "individual's wider life". In this hook, we're not naming the driver, and we're just explaining what led to the accident. Quite a lot of disasters (such as train crashes and airplane crashes) have human error as contributing factors, I don't think mentioning these in the hook violates the guideline. It'd be good to get other people's thoughts on this though. FozzieHey (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've removed the full name from the article. Under WP:BLP, they would be considered a private individual. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Rjjiii: While I always appreciate WP:BOLD edits, I don't think anyone above was suggesting there was a WP:BLP issue within the article itself (in fact, I think @Redrose64 was stating otherwise). It might be worth splitting this out into a new talk section, but what specific section of the BLP policy do you think is violated by naming the driver in the article? They've pleaded guilty, have been convicted in a court and have been named by multiple sources (including the Crown Prosecution Service, British Transport Police and many secondary sources). I think that passes WP:BLPNAME fine, and it's commonplace at least in the United Kingdom to name the individuals involved in situations like these. FozzieHey (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, unless it's a matter of national security, persons convicted in UK courts of a crime that they committed when over the age of 18 are always named by the court, and the name becomes a matter of public record which may be printed in newspapers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I won't edit war his name back out, but reading through the sections under Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy I think the driver is a "private individual" and not a "public figure". He's only known for crashing this train while on his phone. The sources naming him seemed to be from the government or from news media covering the crash. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think an edit war is necessary either! Do you have a specific subsection of "Presumption in favor of privacy" you're looking at? I've had a read of them and I can't see one that would apply here. Yes, the driver is only really notable for one event, but that is the event the article is based on, and we have reliable sources available to name them. This could just be a difference in culture, with Redrose and I used to people convicted in court being named because it's commonplace in the United Kingdom, whereas it might not be in other parts of the world. Do you mind if we post this on WP:BLPNB to see if others can have a look? FozzieHey (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@FozzieHey:, yeah, go ahead and post to BLPNB; I'll accept whatever the consensus is. Regarding " a specific subsection" I'll list below the two places that seem relevant to this article. I'll rank them from most to least relevant and bold the key parts:

1. "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."
2. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

And a secondary consideration is that because an article about the driver would not meet the threshold for notability, then an article about the crash should not be framed as an article about the driver. Regarding "a difference in culture", maybe so. I have lived mostly in the Deep South in the United States. We have a very high incarceration rate and local news coverage of arrests and convictions makes it difficult for folks to find housing and employment upon leaving prison. About a year ago some major US news organizations began to take down crime stories beyond a certain age to mitigate this. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for posting those. I think we've interpreted those sections a bit differently.

• Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

I think we have applied caution here, the name has been published in several reliable sources. We can be fairly confident that the name is correct.

• When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

I think you've missed out some context in the bolding, "should be afforded greater weight". Sure, scholarly sources should be afforded greater weight, but none exist for this article. I don't think that statement is intended to completely rule out news sources, indeed a lot of Wikipedia articles won't use any kind of scholarly sources. The "significant value" statement here might be influenced by the culture differences we have mentioned above.

• Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

I believe this is intended to prevent WP:UNDUE content being added to the article. In this article we're only including the driver's name, and their role in the incident. I think the breadth of sources we have used are reliable for what we've used in the article.

• Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Again, I think we have applied special care here. We've made sure that what we've included in the article is supported by reliable sources. I don't think anyone's suggesting that what we have included is potentially defamatory?

Regarding your comment of And a secondary consideration is that because an article about the driver would not meet the threshold for notability, then an article about the crash should not be framed as an article about the driver. I don't think the revision before your edits is framed as an article about the driver. Sure we do name him, and what role he played in the incident, but we don't include irrelevant content from outside the incident itself.

I can post this to WP:BLPNB to see what others think, but from my experience of other similar articles on Wikipedia, I don't think what we had on the article before your edits is particularly unusual. FozzieHey (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've created a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kirkby train crash FozzieHey (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think his name should be in the article but not the DYK hook. It is well sourced, widely spread in the media and has not been intentionally concealed. He was also ultimately convicted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@FozzieHey and PARAKANYAA:, I have reverted the previous edit to the article. I'll also likely promote this soon in case ã long discussion is discouraging for other promoters. I have just reverted back each place where I removed the name. I do still think it should at least be omitted in the introduction, but that is not a dealbreaker for DYK and the hook is not affected by any of this discussion, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, as for including it in the lead, I don't feel too strongly either way. I do think it's placement in the second paragraph is not unduly prominent, compared to if it was for example in the first sentence, which I don't think would make sense for the level of value it has. FozzieHey (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)