![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of Headquarters, 2, place aux Étoiles, 93200 Saint Denis be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Paris may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Would like to add a link to the wiki page on Yellow train.Any objections?
The link to "Collection of Google Earth locations of SNCF stations" give me an "access denied", so I think that that link have to be removed. JanusDC ( talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is in this article is interesting, but I came to this page to find some history of the SNCF - when was it formed, why, did it replace any previously exisiting private railway companies? It would be good if someone who knows a little of the history could add it to the article. 86.182.91.130 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tom Fort,
La SNCF, qui a exprimé ses regrets pour sa part de responsabilité dans la Shoah, doit "garder la tête haute" parce qu'elle avait une "responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité" dans le transport des déportés, a estimé jeudi l'avocat Serge Klarsfeld. "Je trouve que les attaques dont la SNCF a été l'objet sont injustes", a commenté le président de l'association des fils et filles de déportés juifs de France, en marge de l'inauguration à Orléans d'un musée à la mémoire des déportés des camps d'internement du Loiret. "La SNCF ne pouvait pas escamoter les trains, les rails, ni les cheminots", a-t-il ajouté. "Il y avait une responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité", a-t-il poursuivi, soulignant que la société avait été réquisitionnée pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale et qu'elle n'avait "jamais démarché le gouvernement de Vichy pour transporter des juifs". Selon M. Klarsfeld, "les sacrifices de beaucoup de cheminots qui étaient dans la Résistance justifient que la SNCF garde la tête haute, qu'elle ne courbe pas la tête à la suite des pressions (liées aux) intérêts commerciaux puisqu'en ce moment la SNCF essaie d'obtenir des contrats aux Etats-Unis". "Aux Etats-Unis les gens ont une vision très simpliste de ce qui s'est passé en France, ils assimilent la population française aux dirigeants de Vichy", a poursuivi l'avocat de la cause des déportés en France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.106.189 ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I used 77,00 because the text in this article is "transported nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims from France to Nazi camps, according to historians." I think that is very clear writing and that is how I phrased that opening paragraph as well. I also think that's the better number to include because it more accurately counts all victims. JamaUtil ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User Eraserhead1 has twice reverted edits concerning the Holocaust history section. The deleted material is valid, relevant, sourced, and is certainly not vandalism - as he claimed when he first reverted it. The material consists of the comments and opinion of Jewish Holocaust activists, French historians, a railroad union, a railroad newsreporter, and the Washington Post (concerning SNCF's Maryland contracting story) - all of whom are valid sources. These sources are also all valid third-party sources and are all mainstream (non-fringe group) opinions or commentary. In fact, one of the sources cited was already used in other sections of the article prior to my edits: "Baume, Maïa De La (2011-01-25). "French Railway, S.N.C.F., Apologizes to Holocaust Victims". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/europe/26france.html." Therefore, I have no idea why they should not be included in this article.
Eraserhead1's claimed reason for his first instance of deletion was vandalism, which is clearly not the case. He did not state a reason for his second instance of deletion. Therefore, I believe that this information was removed inappropriately and should be placed back into the article. I will do so if no valid reasons are given here. Thanks.
72.80.200.93 ( talk) 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: Eraserhead1 sent me a brief note saying that he feels this is undue weight. I cannot agree with that because all the sources are mainstream, non-fringe, and third-party sources. Also, there were quite a few such sources included, representing many people and groups in almost every way imaginable - American (such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post) and French (CGT union), Jewish (such as Arno Klarsfeld and Jacques Fredl) and non-Jewish, railroad-specific (Mass Transit Magazine and Don Phillips) and general news (the Washington Post and New York Times). I find this hard to see how this is undue weight in any way. Also, if the majority of valid and relevant sources on this topic make statements that one person (Eraserhead1) does not appear to approve of, this does not automatically mean that undue weight has been given. This is because on some topics, the majority of such sources may have one general perspective or even one opinion. Indeed, Eraserhead1 also graciously linked me to the wikipedia undue weight page. However, that very same page states: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". I believe that the sources I added (in combination with the rest of the article, which is the way I meant it to be read) do represent the majority of the reliable sources on this topic. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. However, as always, Eraserhead1 (and anyone else) please do feel free to add other relevant, validly-sourced material with other points-of-view to this topic. Wikipedia is always a collaborative effort. Again, thank you all very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.200.93 ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this may be a matter of headings as much as anything else. The material Eraserhead1 removed hardly adds to the description of what happened during WWII, but it is relevant to the current SNCF and its operating plans. I created a new heading to separate what happened during WWII from the subsequent corporate, political and legal developments. I cleaned up the previous material in the process. I also added under the old heading a bit of context about the SNCF and the Resistance, to attenuate the over-representation of the Holocaust issue. I will try to return later to the previous WWII specifics, some of which are also out of context in the current version. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Now JamaUtil is accusing me of making up research. This is plainly weird. Just read the links and wikipedia itself, and stop obstructing please, JamaUtil. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Truth or consequences-2's references to him/herself in the third-person makes me think I have seen this editor before. In any case all editors should note that its not the "legal campaign" that has received criticism, but (as said in the NYTimes article), SNCF's apology. Many are saying that its unnecessary because of the inaccurate historical record. This is a nice way to focus the discussion because its trying to just look at SNCF's actions (which is what the article is all about), not reactions to actions. Thanks! JamaUtil ( talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As for the sources, JamaUtil is plainly using a misleading and self-serving interpretation of WP:OR. Check WP:SECONDARY: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Ribeill and the others I cite are not reporting primary experience but rather are all sound secondary sources, professional historians published in expert journals and academic presses. Now: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources." There is nothing wrong with these sources. Indeed, per WP:OR: "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses"; etc.; and, last, newspapers. Even then, notwithstanding JamaUtil's draw to them, confused and error-ridden newspaper sources hardly add; especially in history matters where the errors are obvious both from third-party sources and from existing wikipedia pages. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamalUtil just reverted several edits concerning:1) SNCF's business with Israel and 2) the fact that SNCF opened all its files to public scrutiny in 1996 and 3) the fact the the SNCF-commissioned report of 1996 had acccess to all SNCF files. Concerning #1, the fact that SNCF does significant business with Israel is absolutely relevent to SNCF's Holocaust-era business activities as Israel is a nation composed largely of former European Jews who reestablished their own nation in 1948 largely in response to the horrors of the Holocaust. I really cannot see how one can argue otherwise. In fact, reliable third-party sources, such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post, have made this exact point
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamaUtil keeps changing a sentence to claim that half of the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit. This is unsourced, let alone unrealistic by all estimates of deaths in transit from this type of deportee. What Ribeill said is that half of them died in concentration camps, which does make sense. If you have a source to provide whereby half the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit, cite it; otherwise, desist. Thanks. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamaUtil has taken out everything that was added to explicate the SNCF's history, including - as s/he agreed in this talk page new context material that is relevant for all readings of the article; except one sentence (their last revision is at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=SNCF&oldid=470530426). This article is about the SNCF. If you have a rationale for excluding material about the SNCF that has been deemed properly sourced and relevant in this talk page, justify it by reference to the whole history. Otherwise I will edit what I presume to be WP:AGF but that borders on vandalism. Thanks. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic language. Applied to a picture of a Class 21000 electric locomotive in the "Business Scope" section. Unless SNCF calls it "broken nose", the term (or pseudonym as the case may be) should be excluded.
71.181.168.242 ( talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
One has to distinguish between the EPIC SNCF and the companies governed by private law which are the other part of the SNCF Group. -- L.Willms ( talk) 10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
{{request edit}} Hello to the Wikipedia community, whomever may be watching this page. My name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. My colleagues have been aware for some time that certain sections of this entry, particularly related to WWII, contain a number of inaccuracies, and reflects a distorted view of events. The specific sections are "World War II involvement" and "Reactions to World War II involvement".
It's a very difficult subject, as the section is undoubtedly correct that the SNCF had a role in the deportation of Jews and others from France to Germany and to Nazi camps. However, I'm afraid the presentation of facts in this entry is flawed. I understand that Wikipedia cares less about "what is true" than what reliable sources can verify, and my goal is to make specific points to explain why the current section is not aligned with the truth or with a full range of sources.
As it is a complicated and sensitive subject, I would very much appreciate it if Wikipedia's independent editors were moved not by the interest of SNCF but to historical accuracy to help me correct the record. I would like to begin with one relatively small issue. Right now the first section includes this statement:
The last clause is not true. The source for this sentence, Trains, in fact says this:
The link provided in the article does not work, which may partly explain the issue. An English summary of the source is here. This is just one small thing in a section with numerous problems, but a relatively simple one. Is there an editor here who is willing to make this change? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A Comment:
I’ve reversed the order of the paragraphs in the WWII section; I think the material flows better that way, but also I think it’d be better to start with a positive (as it were) than a negative.
As to the rest, I have to say I’m a bit non-plussed by this. The material here takes up about 10% of the article, which feels like
undue weight in a general article on a railway company. Is SNCF particularly at fault in this area? The subject isn’t mentioned at all in the page on
Polish State Railways who (I’d have thought) were in the same position as SNCF during the war; nor (more pertinently) is there any mention on the
DBB page. And the focus on recent court cases in the US looks to me like
recentism.
I also notice this was the subject of some fraught editing in January this year: If this really is a hot issue, then maybe this should be moved to its own "SNCF-Holocaust controversy" page, and just summarized and linked here. Then maybe both sides of the story can be explored in full.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, and my apologies about the length of time this has taken. I have had some assistance in researching and writing a new version of this section, and it is now ready. In the box is what I propose:
World War II
|
---|
Following the 1940 Armistice through August 1944, German occupying forces in France requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi extermination camps. [1] [2] These deportations have been the subject of historical controversy and lawsuits in France as well as in the United States. [3] [4] SNCF was also requisitioned for the transport of German armed forces and armaments. The invading German troops were responsible for the destruction of nearly 350 French railway bridges and tunnels. According to differing estimates, SNCF surrendered between 125,000-213,000 wagons and 1,000-2,000 locomotives. [5] [6] SNCF employees engaged in acts of resistance including intentionally damaging trains to cause delays and derailments. [5] Nearly 1,700 SNCF railway workers were killed or deported for resisting Nazi orders. [4]
|
This new version seeks to accomplish a few key goals. First, to provide an accurate summary of key events involving SNCF during the war, including the transportation of Jews and other victims, with acknowledgment of the later controversies. Second, to provide an overview of SNCF under German occupation, with regard to infrastructure and damage sustained. Third, to provide details regarding individual SNCF employee efforts in the Resistance, and a casualty count. I should acknowledge that I think the current figure of 1,700 is incomplete, and I am working on additional research for that now. But 1,700 is widely-cited, and if I find a reliable source I will suggest it later.
Nearly all of this material has been in this article at one time or another, and most of the references used are in the article now. The biggest change is that topics of controversy from the 2000s, omitting all but a mention of the Lipietz case and resulting political controversy. It is my intention to provide a longer accounting of these events in the section Holocaust train#France, and I have listed that as "See also" in the new version. I would also suggest calling the section simply "World War II" as no further clarification is needed.
I am very interested to hear others' feedback. Please feel free to make edits if you like, and I will be watching this page closely. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I added the post above to the section; it seems well-cited and nobody has objected. I didn't remove the rest, which probably means some sorting-out needs to be done; but that's no reason to hold back a valid edit request. Of course, edit it, discuss it further, whatever... Shaz0t ( talk) 23:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again to anyone who is watching this page. In discussion late last year, I mentioned that I was working on a more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train#Modern day legacy. This is now ready and I have left a proposal at Talk:Holocaust_train#Inaccuracies_in_Modern_day_legacy:_France. I hope that editors from this page will be available to review this. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I see that an unregistered editor made some changes to this article today that Nick-D has undone. However, I noticed that the page is still twice as long as it should be. It appears an editor copied the whole article and pasted it in again so now the article repeats about half way down the page. You can see the edit here. Can and editor here correct this? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, editors of this Wikipedia page. I have commented here in the past as you may see in discussions previously, and in revisiting this article I have another suggestion to offer. Readers may remember I am a consultant in Washington, DC for SNCF. Independent editors interested in helping me to improve this page would be appreciated.
One of the more contentious, and in fact disputed, claims currently included in the section SNCF#World_War_II regards SNCF's requisition to transport French Jews to the border, and onward to Nazi camps. The claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims" are disputed not just by SNCF but by organizations such as Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France.
The source listed in the article is a 2006 report in The Guardian about a ruling by the Administrative Court of Toulouse in 2006 finding SNCF culpable for its role. Yet it also notes a previous court found otherwise in 2003. The Toulouse ruling was overturned in 2007, however this information is not mentioned in the article. News reports from 2007, by the BBC and Reuters for example, show that this decision was overturned. For this reason, I would like to suggest the declarative statements currently used be clarified as the Toulouse court's findings, and another sentence explaining that this ruling was overturned, as well as the previous court disagreeing.
Currently, the way this article states flatly that these are the "facts" gives a selective, distorted view of the matter. As I understand WP:VERIFY, Wikipedia reflects claims made by reliable sources, it does not decide which it believes. I think the current version of this article is contrary to that, and I want to invite editors to help. If volunteer editors are willing to consider an alternative that I may propose, I will be happy to do so. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for anyone new coming to this request for the very detailed notes so far. To summarize, it is my belief that the section SNCF#World_War_II includes two contentious, disputed claims regarding the SNCF's requisition to transport Jews to the French border during WWII. Specifically, the claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims". Discussed above, it seems that as these false claims have been repeated in the media, from Wikipedia's perspective they are supported to remain in the article. My suggestion, therefore, is to add an alternative perspective on the issue via information from two expert sources on SNCF and WWII: Serge Klarsfeld, President of the association of "Sons and Daughters of Deported French Jews" and Michael Marrus, an eminent historian.
My proposals are in the box below, highlighted:
World War II
|
---|
German occupying forces in France also requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi
extermination camps.
[1]
[2] SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets,
[3]
[4] although passengers were transported in
cattle cars.
[5] After the
liberation of France, the SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims to Germany.
[3]
[6] However, historian
Michael Marrus has written that claims that the SNCF billed for third-class tickets and continued to seek payment after the war ended were made as part of a legal case brought against the SNCF, and did not match with historians' understanding of what happened. Marrus argues that the SNCF had no margin of maneuver during the German occupation and that the actions of SNCF employees were not ideologically motivated.
[2] According to
Serge Klarsfeld, president of the organization
Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France, the SNCF was forced by German and Vichy authorities to cooperate in providing transport for French Jews to the border and did not make any profit from this transport.
[7] The SNCF's role in the deportations has been the subject of historical controversy and lawsuits in France as well as in the United States
to the present day.
[8]
[9]
The SNCF commissioned French academics to write a history of the SNCF activities during World War II in 1992, and the resultant report was published in 1996. [10] [11]
|
Once again, I am very interested to hear others' feedback on this and would like to see whether editors are willing to consider this suggestion. I will be watching this page for replies. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Xyl 54, in that case, I am content with this proposal. My concern was that the claims about SNCF's actions might become separated from the context provided by Marrus and Klarsfeld, however, I am satisfied if you intend to move all of this information together.
Additionally, like yourself and Bahnfrend, I am in agreement that the WWII section has ended up with undue weight the article, given that this is historical information and since then the company has seen significant changes as it developed into its present form. If I may, I would like to assist with efforts to expand the article's discussion of the modern day company. If it is agreeable to all, I shall offer suggestions on this page for new content as I am able to, beginning with a small piece regarding a recent agreement with Israel Railways. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
A recent development in SNCF's operations is its strategic agreement with Israel Railways, which was signed on November 17th. My proposal is that a short statement about this event be added into this article's "Modern day" history. As I have explained previously on this page, since I work as a consultant for SNCF, it is preferable for other editors to assess my suggestions and make any changes in the article that they feel are appropriate.
Here is my suggestion:
I hope that editors will consider this addition. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
An editor named Boundandheard has added information to the section SNCF#World War II that presents a biased and incorrect view of the SNCF's operations during this period of time. I want to invite editors to assess this latest addition and consider its removal. For those who may not be aware, I work as a consultant for SNCF, so rather than making any changes here myself I ask that other editors consider my suggestions and make such changes in the article as appropriate.
The difficulty, one of several, with the new material in the section is that it draws from a biased source, the website for the Coalition for Holocaust Rail Justice, which is an advocacy website focused on pursuing SNCF for reparations. I do not believe this is a reliable source for this article, as its historical views are not neutral and are unsupported by facts. Additionally, the editor has added a new link to the executive summary of the Bachelier Report, commissioned by SNCF to detail the history of the SNCF during WWII, which appears to have been the primary source for some of this addition. However, the editor adding this material has taken a narrow, cherry-picking approach to the source, as well as including details that do not appear at all in this summary report. Let me explain this in more detail:
To summarize, the Bachelier Report does not provide an "different perspective" from that offered by Michael Marrus and Serge Klarsfeld. It has been purposefully misrepresented in this addition. I am interested to hear from independent editors as to what may be done with this addition. Pending this additional analysis, I strongly request that this addition be promptly deleted. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
SNCF is now composed of corporate management and two divisions: SNCF Réseau (infrastructure, formerly Réseau Ferré de France) and SNCF Mobilité (operations). This page and the following pages all need to be organized to reflect the current status of SNCF and railways in France: Réseau Ferré de France, SNCF Infra, Gestionnaire d’Infrastructure Unifié. I don't have time to do this right now or else I would (or will) do it myself. Refer to the French version of this page as well as this link. AHeneen ( talk) 19:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on SNCF. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://39-45.sncf.com/documents/Bachelier_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://elenastravelgram.com/2014/04/france-by-train-ultimate-guide-to-french-railroad.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Removed the NTV stake they liquidated.
Quite a few of those listed are out of date, and either do not function or have been reorganised.
These should be updated to fit with what is the current situation AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead describes "French National Railway Company" as a literal translation of "Société nationale des chemins de fer français". I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate wording, as to my mind a "literal translation" is a translation which intends to demonstrate things like the grammar of a different language or the etymology of its vocabulary rather than demonstrate what the thing being translated actually means in common usage. It may be preferable to simply say that "Société nationale des chemins de fer français" means "French National Railway Company" without specifying whether or not that translation is "literal" or not. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why the 2nd section of the "Business Scope" section is devoted to one country, particularly as both the tenders considered there do not seem to have been completed. Shouldn't this information be in the following section, if it is needed? But it's been there at least 5 years so I'm hesitant to delete it without checking. Chris55 ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
KiloMetro SNCF has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12 § KiloMetro SNCF until a consensus is reached.
Fork99 (
talk) 08:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of Headquarters, 2, place aux Étoiles, 93200 Saint Denis be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Paris may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Would like to add a link to the wiki page on Yellow train.Any objections?
The link to "Collection of Google Earth locations of SNCF stations" give me an "access denied", so I think that that link have to be removed. JanusDC ( talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is in this article is interesting, but I came to this page to find some history of the SNCF - when was it formed, why, did it replace any previously exisiting private railway companies? It would be good if someone who knows a little of the history could add it to the article. 86.182.91.130 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tom Fort,
La SNCF, qui a exprimé ses regrets pour sa part de responsabilité dans la Shoah, doit "garder la tête haute" parce qu'elle avait une "responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité" dans le transport des déportés, a estimé jeudi l'avocat Serge Klarsfeld. "Je trouve que les attaques dont la SNCF a été l'objet sont injustes", a commenté le président de l'association des fils et filles de déportés juifs de France, en marge de l'inauguration à Orléans d'un musée à la mémoire des déportés des camps d'internement du Loiret. "La SNCF ne pouvait pas escamoter les trains, les rails, ni les cheminots", a-t-il ajouté. "Il y avait une responsabilité technique mais pas une culpabilité", a-t-il poursuivi, soulignant que la société avait été réquisitionnée pendant la Seconde guerre mondiale et qu'elle n'avait "jamais démarché le gouvernement de Vichy pour transporter des juifs". Selon M. Klarsfeld, "les sacrifices de beaucoup de cheminots qui étaient dans la Résistance justifient que la SNCF garde la tête haute, qu'elle ne courbe pas la tête à la suite des pressions (liées aux) intérêts commerciaux puisqu'en ce moment la SNCF essaie d'obtenir des contrats aux Etats-Unis". "Aux Etats-Unis les gens ont une vision très simpliste de ce qui s'est passé en France, ils assimilent la population française aux dirigeants de Vichy", a poursuivi l'avocat de la cause des déportés en France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.106.189 ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I used 77,00 because the text in this article is "transported nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims from France to Nazi camps, according to historians." I think that is very clear writing and that is how I phrased that opening paragraph as well. I also think that's the better number to include because it more accurately counts all victims. JamaUtil ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User Eraserhead1 has twice reverted edits concerning the Holocaust history section. The deleted material is valid, relevant, sourced, and is certainly not vandalism - as he claimed when he first reverted it. The material consists of the comments and opinion of Jewish Holocaust activists, French historians, a railroad union, a railroad newsreporter, and the Washington Post (concerning SNCF's Maryland contracting story) - all of whom are valid sources. These sources are also all valid third-party sources and are all mainstream (non-fringe group) opinions or commentary. In fact, one of the sources cited was already used in other sections of the article prior to my edits: "Baume, Maïa De La (2011-01-25). "French Railway, S.N.C.F., Apologizes to Holocaust Victims". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/europe/26france.html." Therefore, I have no idea why they should not be included in this article.
Eraserhead1's claimed reason for his first instance of deletion was vandalism, which is clearly not the case. He did not state a reason for his second instance of deletion. Therefore, I believe that this information was removed inappropriately and should be placed back into the article. I will do so if no valid reasons are given here. Thanks.
72.80.200.93 ( talk) 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: Eraserhead1 sent me a brief note saying that he feels this is undue weight. I cannot agree with that because all the sources are mainstream, non-fringe, and third-party sources. Also, there were quite a few such sources included, representing many people and groups in almost every way imaginable - American (such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post) and French (CGT union), Jewish (such as Arno Klarsfeld and Jacques Fredl) and non-Jewish, railroad-specific (Mass Transit Magazine and Don Phillips) and general news (the Washington Post and New York Times). I find this hard to see how this is undue weight in any way. Also, if the majority of valid and relevant sources on this topic make statements that one person (Eraserhead1) does not appear to approve of, this does not automatically mean that undue weight has been given. This is because on some topics, the majority of such sources may have one general perspective or even one opinion. Indeed, Eraserhead1 also graciously linked me to the wikipedia undue weight page. However, that very same page states: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". I believe that the sources I added (in combination with the rest of the article, which is the way I meant it to be read) do represent the majority of the reliable sources on this topic. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. However, as always, Eraserhead1 (and anyone else) please do feel free to add other relevant, validly-sourced material with other points-of-view to this topic. Wikipedia is always a collaborative effort. Again, thank you all very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.200.93 ( talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this may be a matter of headings as much as anything else. The material Eraserhead1 removed hardly adds to the description of what happened during WWII, but it is relevant to the current SNCF and its operating plans. I created a new heading to separate what happened during WWII from the subsequent corporate, political and legal developments. I cleaned up the previous material in the process. I also added under the old heading a bit of context about the SNCF and the Resistance, to attenuate the over-representation of the Holocaust issue. I will try to return later to the previous WWII specifics, some of which are also out of context in the current version. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Now JamaUtil is accusing me of making up research. This is plainly weird. Just read the links and wikipedia itself, and stop obstructing please, JamaUtil. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Truth or consequences-2's references to him/herself in the third-person makes me think I have seen this editor before. In any case all editors should note that its not the "legal campaign" that has received criticism, but (as said in the NYTimes article), SNCF's apology. Many are saying that its unnecessary because of the inaccurate historical record. This is a nice way to focus the discussion because its trying to just look at SNCF's actions (which is what the article is all about), not reactions to actions. Thanks! JamaUtil ( talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As for the sources, JamaUtil is plainly using a misleading and self-serving interpretation of WP:OR. Check WP:SECONDARY: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Ribeill and the others I cite are not reporting primary experience but rather are all sound secondary sources, professional historians published in expert journals and academic presses. Now: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources." There is nothing wrong with these sources. Indeed, per WP:OR: "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses"; etc.; and, last, newspapers. Even then, notwithstanding JamaUtil's draw to them, confused and error-ridden newspaper sources hardly add; especially in history matters where the errors are obvious both from third-party sources and from existing wikipedia pages. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamalUtil just reverted several edits concerning:1) SNCF's business with Israel and 2) the fact that SNCF opened all its files to public scrutiny in 1996 and 3) the fact the the SNCF-commissioned report of 1996 had acccess to all SNCF files. Concerning #1, the fact that SNCF does significant business with Israel is absolutely relevent to SNCF's Holocaust-era business activities as Israel is a nation composed largely of former European Jews who reestablished their own nation in 1948 largely in response to the horrors of the Holocaust. I really cannot see how one can argue otherwise. In fact, reliable third-party sources, such as Don Phillips and the Washington Post, have made this exact point
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamaUtil keeps changing a sentence to claim that half of the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit. This is unsourced, let alone unrealistic by all estimates of deaths in transit from this type of deportee. What Ribeill said is that half of them died in concentration camps, which does make sense. If you have a source to provide whereby half the Résistance-Fer deportees died in transit, cite it; otherwise, desist. Thanks. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JamaUtil has taken out everything that was added to explicate the SNCF's history, including - as s/he agreed in this talk page new context material that is relevant for all readings of the article; except one sentence (their last revision is at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=SNCF&oldid=470530426). This article is about the SNCF. If you have a rationale for excluding material about the SNCF that has been deemed properly sourced and relevant in this talk page, justify it by reference to the whole history. Otherwise I will edit what I presume to be WP:AGF but that borders on vandalism. Thanks. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
72.80.207.127 ( talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic language. Applied to a picture of a Class 21000 electric locomotive in the "Business Scope" section. Unless SNCF calls it "broken nose", the term (or pseudonym as the case may be) should be excluded.
71.181.168.242 ( talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
One has to distinguish between the EPIC SNCF and the companies governed by private law which are the other part of the SNCF Group. -- L.Willms ( talk) 10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
{{request edit}} Hello to the Wikipedia community, whomever may be watching this page. My name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. My colleagues have been aware for some time that certain sections of this entry, particularly related to WWII, contain a number of inaccuracies, and reflects a distorted view of events. The specific sections are "World War II involvement" and "Reactions to World War II involvement".
It's a very difficult subject, as the section is undoubtedly correct that the SNCF had a role in the deportation of Jews and others from France to Germany and to Nazi camps. However, I'm afraid the presentation of facts in this entry is flawed. I understand that Wikipedia cares less about "what is true" than what reliable sources can verify, and my goal is to make specific points to explain why the current section is not aligned with the truth or with a full range of sources.
As it is a complicated and sensitive subject, I would very much appreciate it if Wikipedia's independent editors were moved not by the interest of SNCF but to historical accuracy to help me correct the record. I would like to begin with one relatively small issue. Right now the first section includes this statement:
The last clause is not true. The source for this sentence, Trains, in fact says this:
The link provided in the article does not work, which may partly explain the issue. An English summary of the source is here. This is just one small thing in a section with numerous problems, but a relatively simple one. Is there an editor here who is willing to make this change? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A Comment:
I’ve reversed the order of the paragraphs in the WWII section; I think the material flows better that way, but also I think it’d be better to start with a positive (as it were) than a negative.
As to the rest, I have to say I’m a bit non-plussed by this. The material here takes up about 10% of the article, which feels like
undue weight in a general article on a railway company. Is SNCF particularly at fault in this area? The subject isn’t mentioned at all in the page on
Polish State Railways who (I’d have thought) were in the same position as SNCF during the war; nor (more pertinently) is there any mention on the
DBB page. And the focus on recent court cases in the US looks to me like
recentism.
I also notice this was the subject of some fraught editing in January this year: If this really is a hot issue, then maybe this should be moved to its own "SNCF-Holocaust controversy" page, and just summarized and linked here. Then maybe both sides of the story can be explored in full.
Xyl 54 (
talk) 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, and my apologies about the length of time this has taken. I have had some assistance in researching and writing a new version of this section, and it is now ready. In the box is what I propose:
World War II
|
---|
Following the 1940 Armistice through August 1944, German occupying forces in France requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi extermination camps. [1] [2] These deportations have been the subject of historical controversy and lawsuits in France as well as in the United States. [3] [4] SNCF was also requisitioned for the transport of German armed forces and armaments. The invading German troops were responsible for the destruction of nearly 350 French railway bridges and tunnels. According to differing estimates, SNCF surrendered between 125,000-213,000 wagons and 1,000-2,000 locomotives. [5] [6] SNCF employees engaged in acts of resistance including intentionally damaging trains to cause delays and derailments. [5] Nearly 1,700 SNCF railway workers were killed or deported for resisting Nazi orders. [4]
|
This new version seeks to accomplish a few key goals. First, to provide an accurate summary of key events involving SNCF during the war, including the transportation of Jews and other victims, with acknowledgment of the later controversies. Second, to provide an overview of SNCF under German occupation, with regard to infrastructure and damage sustained. Third, to provide details regarding individual SNCF employee efforts in the Resistance, and a casualty count. I should acknowledge that I think the current figure of 1,700 is incomplete, and I am working on additional research for that now. But 1,700 is widely-cited, and if I find a reliable source I will suggest it later.
Nearly all of this material has been in this article at one time or another, and most of the references used are in the article now. The biggest change is that topics of controversy from the 2000s, omitting all but a mention of the Lipietz case and resulting political controversy. It is my intention to provide a longer accounting of these events in the section Holocaust train#France, and I have listed that as "See also" in the new version. I would also suggest calling the section simply "World War II" as no further clarification is needed.
I am very interested to hear others' feedback. Please feel free to make edits if you like, and I will be watching this page closely. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I added the post above to the section; it seems well-cited and nobody has objected. I didn't remove the rest, which probably means some sorting-out needs to be done; but that's no reason to hold back a valid edit request. Of course, edit it, discuss it further, whatever... Shaz0t ( talk) 23:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again to anyone who is watching this page. In discussion late last year, I mentioned that I was working on a more complete version of the "France" section within Holocaust train#Modern day legacy. This is now ready and I have left a proposal at Talk:Holocaust_train#Inaccuracies_in_Modern_day_legacy:_France. I hope that editors from this page will be available to review this. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I see that an unregistered editor made some changes to this article today that Nick-D has undone. However, I noticed that the page is still twice as long as it should be. It appears an editor copied the whole article and pasted it in again so now the article repeats about half way down the page. You can see the edit here. Can and editor here correct this? Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, editors of this Wikipedia page. I have commented here in the past as you may see in discussions previously, and in revisiting this article I have another suggestion to offer. Readers may remember I am a consultant in Washington, DC for SNCF. Independent editors interested in helping me to improve this page would be appreciated.
One of the more contentious, and in fact disputed, claims currently included in the section SNCF#World_War_II regards SNCF's requisition to transport French Jews to the border, and onward to Nazi camps. The claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims" are disputed not just by SNCF but by organizations such as Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France.
The source listed in the article is a 2006 report in The Guardian about a ruling by the Administrative Court of Toulouse in 2006 finding SNCF culpable for its role. Yet it also notes a previous court found otherwise in 2003. The Toulouse ruling was overturned in 2007, however this information is not mentioned in the article. News reports from 2007, by the BBC and Reuters for example, show that this decision was overturned. For this reason, I would like to suggest the declarative statements currently used be clarified as the Toulouse court's findings, and another sentence explaining that this ruling was overturned, as well as the previous court disagreeing.
Currently, the way this article states flatly that these are the "facts" gives a selective, distorted view of the matter. As I understand WP:VERIFY, Wikipedia reflects claims made by reliable sources, it does not decide which it believes. I think the current version of this article is contrary to that, and I want to invite editors to help. If volunteer editors are willing to consider an alternative that I may propose, I will be happy to do so. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for anyone new coming to this request for the very detailed notes so far. To summarize, it is my belief that the section SNCF#World_War_II includes two contentious, disputed claims regarding the SNCF's requisition to transport Jews to the French border during WWII. Specifically, the claims "SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets" and "SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims". Discussed above, it seems that as these false claims have been repeated in the media, from Wikipedia's perspective they are supported to remain in the article. My suggestion, therefore, is to add an alternative perspective on the issue via information from two expert sources on SNCF and WWII: Serge Klarsfeld, President of the association of "Sons and Daughters of Deported French Jews" and Michael Marrus, an eminent historian.
My proposals are in the box below, highlighted:
World War II
|
---|
German occupying forces in France also requisitioned SNCF to transport nearly 77,000 Jews and other Holocaust victims to Nazi
extermination camps.
[1]
[2] SNCF billed Nazi-occupied France for third-class tickets,
[3]
[4] although passengers were transported in
cattle cars.
[5] After the
liberation of France, the SNCF continued to seek payment for transporting Holocaust victims to Germany.
[3]
[6] However, historian
Michael Marrus has written that claims that the SNCF billed for third-class tickets and continued to seek payment after the war ended were made as part of a legal case brought against the SNCF, and did not match with historians' understanding of what happened. Marrus argues that the SNCF had no margin of maneuver during the German occupation and that the actions of SNCF employees were not ideologically motivated.
[2] According to
Serge Klarsfeld, president of the organization
Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France, the SNCF was forced by German and Vichy authorities to cooperate in providing transport for French Jews to the border and did not make any profit from this transport.
[7] The SNCF's role in the deportations has been the subject of historical controversy and lawsuits in France as well as in the United States
to the present day.
[8]
[9]
The SNCF commissioned French academics to write a history of the SNCF activities during World War II in 1992, and the resultant report was published in 1996. [10] [11]
|
Once again, I am very interested to hear others' feedback on this and would like to see whether editors are willing to consider this suggestion. I will be watching this page for replies. Thanks. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Xyl 54, in that case, I am content with this proposal. My concern was that the claims about SNCF's actions might become separated from the context provided by Marrus and Klarsfeld, however, I am satisfied if you intend to move all of this information together.
Additionally, like yourself and Bahnfrend, I am in agreement that the WWII section has ended up with undue weight the article, given that this is historical information and since then the company has seen significant changes as it developed into its present form. If I may, I would like to assist with efforts to expand the article's discussion of the modern day company. If it is agreeable to all, I shall offer suggestions on this page for new content as I am able to, beginning with a small piece regarding a recent agreement with Israel Railways. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
A recent development in SNCF's operations is its strategic agreement with Israel Railways, which was signed on November 17th. My proposal is that a short statement about this event be added into this article's "Modern day" history. As I have explained previously on this page, since I work as a consultant for SNCF, it is preferable for other editors to assess my suggestions and make any changes in the article that they feel are appropriate.
Here is my suggestion:
I hope that editors will consider this addition. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
An editor named Boundandheard has added information to the section SNCF#World War II that presents a biased and incorrect view of the SNCF's operations during this period of time. I want to invite editors to assess this latest addition and consider its removal. For those who may not be aware, I work as a consultant for SNCF, so rather than making any changes here myself I ask that other editors consider my suggestions and make such changes in the article as appropriate.
The difficulty, one of several, with the new material in the section is that it draws from a biased source, the website for the Coalition for Holocaust Rail Justice, which is an advocacy website focused on pursuing SNCF for reparations. I do not believe this is a reliable source for this article, as its historical views are not neutral and are unsupported by facts. Additionally, the editor has added a new link to the executive summary of the Bachelier Report, commissioned by SNCF to detail the history of the SNCF during WWII, which appears to have been the primary source for some of this addition. However, the editor adding this material has taken a narrow, cherry-picking approach to the source, as well as including details that do not appear at all in this summary report. Let me explain this in more detail:
To summarize, the Bachelier Report does not provide an "different perspective" from that offered by Michael Marrus and Serge Klarsfeld. It has been purposefully misrepresented in this addition. I am interested to hear from independent editors as to what may be done with this addition. Pending this additional analysis, I strongly request that this addition be promptly deleted. Jerry M. Ray ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
SNCF is now composed of corporate management and two divisions: SNCF Réseau (infrastructure, formerly Réseau Ferré de France) and SNCF Mobilité (operations). This page and the following pages all need to be organized to reflect the current status of SNCF and railways in France: Réseau Ferré de France, SNCF Infra, Gestionnaire d’Infrastructure Unifié. I don't have time to do this right now or else I would (or will) do it myself. Refer to the French version of this page as well as this link. AHeneen ( talk) 19:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on SNCF. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://39-45.sncf.com/documents/Bachelier_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://elenastravelgram.com/2014/04/france-by-train-ultimate-guide-to-french-railroad.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Removed the NTV stake they liquidated.
Quite a few of those listed are out of date, and either do not function or have been reorganised.
These should be updated to fit with what is the current situation AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The lead describes "French National Railway Company" as a literal translation of "Société nationale des chemins de fer français". I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate wording, as to my mind a "literal translation" is a translation which intends to demonstrate things like the grammar of a different language or the etymology of its vocabulary rather than demonstrate what the thing being translated actually means in common usage. It may be preferable to simply say that "Société nationale des chemins de fer français" means "French National Railway Company" without specifying whether or not that translation is "literal" or not. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why the 2nd section of the "Business Scope" section is devoted to one country, particularly as both the tenders considered there do not seem to have been completed. Shouldn't this information be in the following section, if it is needed? But it's been there at least 5 years so I'm hesitant to delete it without checking. Chris55 ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
KiloMetro SNCF has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12 § KiloMetro SNCF until a consensus is reached.
Fork99 (
talk) 08:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)