This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
Regarding this edit, I don't think it's appropriate to call this an alleged disaster - for consistency we'd then have to introduce such a qualifier into every sentence of the article: "The alleged incident happened ", "The train was allegedly carrying" etc.. This is not helpful, because there is no indication that this event was a fabrication, it simply wasn't confirmed by the local authorities, which is really no surprise. The sources state this while also reporting it confidently as having taken place.
We already make this clear in the second paragraph of the lead. It's then up to readers to make up their own minds based on the sources we provide. Wikipedia doesn't label incidents as "alleged" simply because they aren't confirmed by whatever state apparatus is present where they took place.--Pontificalibus 07:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: I guess alleged is not exactly the correct word. But Britannica seems to describe it as "unconfirmed". Generally for contentious events like these, I think it should be mentioned in the first line or second line.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: I agree, that's why I put "not confirmed" on the second line, and that entire paragraph is devoted to explaining exactly who said what at the time. This way we are being much more informative, accurate and useful than Britannica.--Pontificalibus 06:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
