Talk:Canoe River train crash

Couple more thoughts

Couple more thoughts, branching off from the FAC comments:

• Number of injuries is in the infobox but not the main body of the article or the lead. Should probably be added somewhere, as this will also need sourcing (the sources I have looked at give different numbers for the injured).
• Several source mention a poem (inscribed on some of the memorials). It would be nice to know more about this poem and have it mentioned in the article, including when it was composed and first published (which I've been unable to ascertain).
• Was reading this and if you can get past the formatting, there are some interesting bits there. Mostly not relevant, but I thought the mention that Mount Diefenbaker is not far from the crash site was interesting. It also has a copy of the poem I mentioned above.
• I got from there to here, which doesn't add anything new, but it did lead to Korea: Canada's Forgotten War. That is a link to the revised edition in 2011. The earlier edition has references to this crash, so it might be useful.
• It is worth making clearer why there were only injuries on the Continental train - was it not because that had steel passenger coaches, rather than the wooden ones used on the troop train? You do say "eleven all-steel cars" earlier, but repeating this at the point where talk about the damage and injuries to the eastbound train might make it clearer.
• I just read the bit in the nursing journal (for others reading this, search for "canoe river"). That's an amazing part of the story, and a very readable account. I hope some of the readers of this article end up reading that.
• In the memorials and tributes section, the RCHA acronym is not immediately obvious as it is not used previously in the main text. It is a pity there are no more details about the CNR memorial (e.g. erection or dedication date). Personally, I would add the dates of when the Korea Book of Remembrance was set up, when the Wall of Remembrance was dedicated, and when the Korea Cairn at Winnipeg Brookside Cemetery was dedicated. Dates for all three should be possible.
• I'm tentatively wondering if linking to a list of those killed, including the names of those killed in the train locomotives, would be desirable (I know a list in the article isn't really suitable). Also, maybe it should be made clearer in the article that more detailed information on each soldier is recorded at the Virtual Memorial? (William David Wright and David Owens). If you click on the additional information links there, you will probably pick up any additional memorials.
• There is a photo of the Continental locomotive 6004 out there on a webpage somewhere, but I can't find it now. Will add a link here later if manage to locate it again. It seems to have vanished or I'm searching with the wrong keywords. (Update: the photo is here, from this page - probably not freely licensed, but I thought it was worth pointing it out).
• Sources seem to differ on the precise spelling of the doctor's name.
• There are some other Canadian Korean War memorials where all 516 soldiers that died (that being the official figure) are commemorated, such as the one here. Maybe a note saying that the figure of 516 includes these 17 might be warranted, rather than mentioning memorials that don't list them separately (as the Brookside Cemetery one does)?
• Also, if some of the soldiers are to be mentioned individually here (e.g. the gunner that had a lake named after him in Manitoba), then it is worth pointing out here that at least one of them is also mentioned on another 'state' memorial, such as this one here. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere, but having found that, I wanted to point it out on the talk page at least. I also looked through the records for each of the soldiers here, as the article says that four bodies were not found or not recovered, and all but three were buried or commemorated individually in a cemetery. It is not possible to be certain about this, but again thought it worth pointing out that the Virtual Memorial entries do list burial details where known (though it does also have a fair number of errors).

Those are all the notes I have left over from reading through the article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will work though these gradually as time permits and as more info becomes available (I hope to visit the area of the crash next month, and may find useful things at the Valemount library).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hope the trip goes well. As far as the number of missing goes, have a look at the report here. That is from 24 November (the Friday) and states that a military funeral was held on Thursday for 12 of the dead (three then taken by train to their hometowns, and nine by airplane to more distant locations). Presumably those twelve funerals included soldiers from the 6 bodies that were recovered on Thursday (the crash took place on the Tuesday), with two bodies still missing (a locomotive engineer and a soldier). The two soldiers reported still missing at the end of the article are presumably the other two of the four bodies never found, though that does presume that the number of four bodies never recovered is correct. I'm sure there are other articles around as well that reported on the funerals and recovery efforts. I'll post here if I come across anything more. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed image sizes

Is there any specific reason for forcing the image sizes in this article? I can only speak for my self obviously, but the images look disproportionately large on my screen. Doesn't WP:IMGSIZE dictate to not use forced image sizes? --Eisfbnore • talk 10:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong view on the subject. Should I change them to "thumb", then?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. Thanks for the article, btw; that was an interesting read. :) --Eisfbnore • talk 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I'm still inserting random facts from a research trip to British Columbia into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Distances

I have obtained a copy of a Canadian National Railways passenger timetable and the distances for places mentioned are:

Station	Miles from Montreal
Jasper	2395.1
Red Pass Junction	2438.9
Jackman (end of ABS signalling)	2460.6
Valemount	2469.6
Cedarside	2473.5
Canoe River	2478.4
Gosnell	2498.4
Blue River	2527.5
Vancouver	2924.2

Reference: Canadian National Railways. Passenger Time Tables: April 28 to October 26, 1957. p. 51. Table 135.

Hope this helps — Iain Bell (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks. It seems to bear out both the distances in the article and also my personal experience from my visit there this summer. The Canoe River station is long gone. Cedarside is still there but it is not a public area, I sort of snuck in after hours. The Valemount station has been moved and it's now the local museum. I drove by some of the other places, but there was nothing of interest to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it actually say Gosnall with a a? I would be surprised if I were screwing up that badly, though I've made some howlers in my time. I drove past a "Gosnell Road" on my way up Highway 5 to Valemount, but as nothing actually happened there, I did not bother to stop.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my error. Should be ‘Gosnell’. I have corrected it in the table above. — Iain Bell (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Was the bar exam easy or hard?

The part on the bar exam doesn't make much sense. It says the BC bar was notoriously difficult, but then it says it consisted of one simple question. Why was it just one? Did they change it for him or something? --AW (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Although we don't have reliable sources that get into the bar examiners' head, I do have one article from the Ottawa Citizen that notes that Dief was taking the case for free and maybe the examiners shouldn't be charging him so much money (that would be maybe $20,000 today). I can't put it in the article because it is speculation, but they caved. Dief was not yet a national figure, but he was well-known in the West and in Ottawa and if they had failed a very prominent lawyer from another province, after taking his money (and him freshly widowered) it would have looked bad. So to speak, they gave him a pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, thanks. Maybe yu could put it in with the speculation, like "The Ottawa Citizen speculated that..." --AW (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant. The Citizen didn't do any speculating, I guess that's me! I don't want to imply possibly false causes and effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

picture layout

Very important that pictures are relevant to the sections. they are not just "eye candy" to place in the golden text...but really are very powerful methods of communication. That is why AP pays money for stringers to take pics of Green Helmet man and the like.

Anyhow, let me just see what the article looks like with the newspaper up top. The crash map with the crash section. The siding thing with the inquiry. (MUCH better fits for those last two). And the train, I guess under rescue (no good home for it).

The Infobox gone (we could keep it, also, but really not helpful, this is not an "almanac" type of topic).

And getting rid of the L-R alternation (so 2007).

Feel free to revert after. Just want to see what it looks like.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Note, the picture has been looked at by THE BEST minds at the Commons copyright question desk (I know those peeps). And has even had the tilt taken out because of some worry about that. It is legit. Maybe looks like we are getting away with something...but are not. So no skirts fluttering...64.134.168.97 (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to keep the infobox where it is. The headline is nice, but it doesn't need to lead off the article because it isn't "telling" anything that we don't already know. The images in the infobox were calculated to orient. People don't know where Canoe River is for a very good reason. It is the hell and gone in BC, it took me nine hours from Vancouver with some stops. I'd like to hear what people watching the article think.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored things. The IP lost me at "golden text". I suggest specific changes be proposed here before such disruptive edits so you can see it are made (try preview for 'seeing'). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I just wanted you to look at it. Still think the bulk of the infobox is not very interesting (doesn't have almanacy things like the height of the Statue of Liberty).

And since the average person has NEVER heard of this crash, a headline makes them "care" more quickly and viscerally. And the "big crash, # dead" is the more quick thing to want to grapple with (to put this mystery term in context), not "in the mountains". Also, that the details of geometry and such fit better within the crash section. And in general, a more fast understood and emotionally compelling picture is more important for a lead, than one that requires a lot of looking at and thinking about (like a two-panel map with geometry of rail lines). Think about what kind of picture would be featured on the front page of the newspaper? A map?? or dead bodies?? If it bleeds, it leads...;-)

And the other moves as discussed. But I'm fine. Just wanted you to look at it. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And for Brer, the intention was pretty clearly to do a "trial" for appearance. Not to drive some revert war crap. You can't assess this stuff without actually making the change and taking a look at it. Ideally giving it a day or so of getting used to it. Anyhoo, the author has at least had a look, so I have reverted.64.134.168.97 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did look at it. I have no objection to rearranging the images, but I think probably we should keep the infobox as is. I'm not the biggest fan of infoboxes, but if we want to do something else, we probably should discuss in detail. I would welcome your thoughts on the article. I welcome feedback and react to it. I don't always see the article from a reader's perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could find a way by rearranging the maps? Feel free to experiment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to re-arrange the pictures and keep the infobox that is an option (I even mentioned it in my first post...of course you'd have to read past the slight bodycheck on golden text.  ;-)) I've put a substantial "version B" forward. If you see anything worthwhile, will leave it up to you to implement. (I'm not trying to drive a version...could care less...but to show you something.) If the map formatting or the like gives you a hard time, get MissMJ to help or just look at my revision code and figure it out. Chaka, bra.  :-) 64.134.168.97 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You could maybe do something like having the headline up top and the map lower down (within the infobox). Sort of like this:

Arabian Wolf Arabic: ذئب عربي
Conservation status
Critically Endangered (IUCN 3.1)
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Carnivora
Family:	Canidae
Genus:	Canis
Species:	C. lupus
Subspecies:	C. l. arabs
Trinomial name
Canis lupus arabs Pocock, 1934
Arabian wolf range

I'm not crazy about infoboxes since they get long and since they reduce the image size (to fit inside). But in this case, layout "B" had the pics all on the right anyway, so it is basically same thing, but within an infobox. Also, if you consider how the species infoboxes "work", you see that people have an iconic (fast processed) picture of the animal on top and then the map lower down (as it is more detailed reading really, to parse a map).64.134.168.97 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the template will support that?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm in favour of retaining the infobox. They're useful as a précis. We can see your version here (and here, and here). I've no particular objection to the newspaper image being used or images nudged to more relevant locations. I am concerned that we could get into a too many images to content ratio situation, resulting in overall layout problems. And I'm pretty much with you on the L-R alternation issue. Of course you're free to experiment; just take modest steps, please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

W: Well...what is it doing for you? Can you explain why you like it? I mean the text fields in there are pretty uninteresting. It's not like a country where you would have some almanac info like population and area and the like.

(and in any case, the template can be tweaked or an alternative used. Don't let the format affect the layout...drive for the reader...and you don't even know that this is a real problem.)

(and the lead is the precis. it is even a "short" lead...one more reason an infobox not needed.)

I put a substantial revision in. If you all like any of it...ball. your side of the court. (your turn.) If you don't want to bother, than maybe the changes are not that compelling. Peace.64.134.168.97 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I need to look closer at how your images do better for the various sections. Perhaps my like of the infobox is creator's pride, doing the maps that way was my idea, and I was thinking that despite how obscure Canoe River is, people will know at a glance right where it happened. But that's not a reader's perspective. Also, we do have some obligation to make articles as uniform as possible. To my mind, that makes a presumption that we should have an infobox, to quickly set forth what happened, where, and how. But the other images, as you can probably tell, were added later, after my visit to Canoe River and Cedarside, and have not been reviewed by the community, except the very few people who read this article, and who may not even realize they can comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Another idea: You could put one of the memorial pics in the lead spot. (It is interesting that the TFA used one of them...it needed an iconic graphic.) The rest of the layout as discussed in version B, except put the headline down in the rescue section. (since it concerns casualties.) Still not sure where the train goes, but wedge it in somewhere.64.134.168.97 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You know your stuff. We can, I think, put any two images we like in the infobox, but I'm concerned that if we have the maps right below that, it might be image overload.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to put the headline in the infobox, fine, but I'd like to keep at least one map image, with the others further south. Thanks for your attention, surprised you've "heard of it".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canoe River train crash. 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/20120208010101/https://archive.org/details/canadiannurse101952cana to http://ia700607.us.archive.org/14/items/canadiannurse101952cana/CnVol.48No10Oct1952.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Canoe River train crash. 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/20120327210126/http://www.2rcha.net/d-battery to http://www.2rcha.net/d-battery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327210113/http://www.2rcha.net/regimental-history to http://www.2rcha.net/regimental-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316102109/http://www.artillery.net/beta/the-canoe-river-memorial/ to http://www.artillery.net/beta/the-canoe-river-memorial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316102130/http://www.artillery.net/new/soch7.html to http://www.artillery.net/new/soch7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)