Talk:Carrollton bus disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
I have done significant editing of this article in an attempt to remove the preaching done by User:Vaoverland. But I'm not sure that this article is unbiased. I am putting an NPOV tag up and invite anyone here from it to decide if the article is neutral yet. See diff of my edit here. 119 03:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I want to apologize to anyone unintentionally offended by my efforts to write this article and point out what improvements have been accomplished. Vaoverland 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks pretty good now. Nice work.
[edit] NPOV on bus collision
Your preaching on the 'horror' of 'that terrible night' in Bus Accident at Carrollton, Kentucky in 1988 is shocking. Please remember that Wikipedia is neutral. 119 04:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No harm intended. However, it was a horrible accident. When compiling it, I tried to leave out some of the more gruesome details, many of which were published in the media. I do have strong feelings about prevention of a recurrence. If the article needs help with NPOV, how about some help? Vaoverland 16:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Continued help requested
I have gone back through this article and the related one, Church bus and school bus safety. I have added references to the sources for information as was noted by User:119:119. I agree that we want NPOV content in both articles. I have posted the updated information on the very active on-line School Bus Fleet Forum, which is where some of the information originated. There are ongoing safety issues which these articles can help publicize. Any help or suggestions will be appreciated. Vaoverland 19:23, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
OK I did some work on it, how's it now? Still need effort, OK, None of the above? Thanx 68.39.174.150 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Assistance
If anyone is doing continuing work on this article and has questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I would make changes myself, but I believe I am irreversibly POV: One of my brothers was married to a survivor. (They married long after the accident.) I remember the accident vividly, and have extensive materials relating to it; I would be willing to answer any questions that might come up. Essjay (talk) 10:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
The title of this article is too long and too detailed. I propose it is changed to one of the following: Carrollton bus accident, Carrollton bus crash, Carrollton bus disaster or any of these with (1988) in brackets afterwards (especially if there is another major bus accident in Carrollton, but I can't see one mentioned). I'll change it myself if there is not reply soon, if anyone has any better suggestions, then let me know. The article itself is very good--Jackyd101 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think Carrollton bus disaster (1988) would be the best of these. It is also known as the Kentucky Bus Crash (1988) in some source materials. The fact is that the massive loss of life occured after the crash itself, so disaster fits better than crash or accident IMHO. Thanks for the compliment about the article. A lot of folks have helped work on it since the first version. Vaoverland 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The book
I just finished reading Reckless Disregard obtained for me by my library by loan from another library. It is rough reading, although the horrible details are not sensationalized, IMHO. I have made a few changes to the article for clarification. Despite the accusation that my original work on this article amounted to preaching, I still feel that understanding what happened could help those operating church buses in their efforts to be as prepared as possible for such a contingency as a wrong way driver on the Interstate. Thanks to everyone who has helped with this article. Vaoverland 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly, this accident was horrific, but articles in the Wikipedia have to be neutral. The subjective language and bias that would naturally come from someone emotionally involved in the incident will do a lot to damage the article and what you are actually trying to achieve. In short, just tell us facts, not your opinion based on the facts. I know it's hard to do, but it's a hard requirement in the Wikipedia. Also note that nobody is stopping you from writing a blog or having a website that expresses your opinions on these matters. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work
15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Touche. However, I believe that the substantially editted current version of the article addresses the earlier concerns. Thanks for the suggestions. Vaoverland 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from an unregistered user and my reply
NOTE: This was copied from User Talk: Vaoverland:
[edit] my classmates where there
I was happy to find this! I was a student of Marian Heights Academy at the time of this accident. We had two buses also returning from Kings Island that where behind the bus that was hit. Personally, I was lucky. I was one of three that were to broke to go, but hearing the stories from my friends of watching children attempting to escape, but dying in the process still and always will continue something that I think about.
We have a terrible intersection that is in our bus routes (divided highway). It's not a matter of if our buses will be in an accident at that intersection, but when. I am hoping that the reality of this story will help in getting people to see what tragic loss we could incur if something is not changed. Poor intersections and high speeds can be just as dangerous as drunk driving. The suggested speed limit is 45mph at the intersection, but in the state of Missouri, they are not enforceable, therefore, most people drive through at 70mph (65mph is the posted, but 45mph is suggested).
Thank you for posting information on the accident.
- Thank you for sharing your memories. About the current traffic hazard you have identified and have concerns, one thing about bureaucrats that works is accountability. I recommend that you take the time to write, express your concerns, and share the horror of the 1988 Kentucky incident. It will get some attention, thought, and even possibly, corrective action. No bureaucrat want to have had fore knowledge and have done nothing. Trust me, I was one. Even if not corrected, you will also have a bit of peace of mind that you did what you could instead of silently knowing the hazard and waiting for the "bad one". safety will always be a moving target. Mark Vaoverland 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This sounds like a tenth grade history report.
With the amount of grammatical mistakes, the incorrect word usage or the 'not up to Wiki's standards' contained in there, and the fact that it sounds like what a sophomore would write during an all-nighter for a B-, it's a bit... pathetic. I read the first part about the crash, and almost stopped because anyone who constantly edits this article must notice it's nothing like any other quality art. And ending the whole section with, "As a result, this collision has the highest death and injury toll of any school bus crash in United States history"? That just... urgh. I sort of wanted to just shut my computer off. I mean, it's repetitive. It's up at the beginning how many times? That is an absolute conclusion right there, and makes it feel like I'm proofing someone's paper.
Fact of the matter is, no, I won't deal with the article. I'm sick, and I read this only because drunk driving linked to it. Or... something about being drunk mentioned it. I thought it'd be interesting. Instead I feel like I'm a teacher.-Babylon pride 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, one thing about Wikipedia is that we are all entitled to our opinions. And, we all have an opportunity to improve an article. This one could be better, but fortunately, many Wikipedians focus on constructive criticism, rather than just ranting. It is far better written and referenced than many WP articles, although the subject is rough reading, for anyone who cares about kids and bus safety at least. I hope other WP editors with a better attititude will keep working to improve it. Also, I am grateful that most teachers I know don't find their work degrading, as you seem to be saying it is. The fact is, we have a lot of teachers and high school students working together to make WP better. Vaoverland 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Babylon Pride, I'm not sure you've got much standing to complain about grammatical errors. Your most recent edit reinstated an erroneous usage and it is apparent you don't quite have the grasp you think you have of English grammar. You are looking at the plural subject and mistakenly pluralising the copula. When using the quantifier "none" with the present or past-tense copula, the singular form is correct. None of these jackets is mine, not none of these jackets are mine. In this article, none of the passengers was able to escape is correct, and none of the passengers were able to escape is wrong. You may check any reputable and current grammar text if you disbelieve me; while this is a common misusage, it is a misusage nonetheless. It may help you to understand why the singular is correct if you consider the long form of "none", which is "not one". With this substitution, it is much more intuitive that the singular is correct: Not one of the passengers was able to escape. --Scheinwerfermann 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- While I agree with everything Scheinwerfermann pointed out about the correct grammar, while looking at it anyway, I thought that one section could provide both a little more content and a little better readability for clarity. I hope I have improved it in those ways. Vaoverland 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- First, sorry if any of the italics are messed up. I'm not used to using them.
-
-
-
- Next. Did I say I was a teacher? I didn't mean to. Sorry if it came across that way. What I meant was that I feel like I'm reading something that someone writes in just a few hours time, with no care. It has an introduction, a body and a conclusion. An introduction is great on Wiki, considering that's the summary at the top. The body is all the articles. To have a conclusion at the end though...
-
-
-
- Now, yesterday, I admit I was a bitch. There's no denying that. I'm sick and no matter the trash I hear about Wiki - as it's a website run mostly by people out of their studies, bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms, or work offices during their free times - I think it's one, if not the best, place for information on the web. And maybe a laugh when you find old discussions and read heated arguments about whether or not to keep an image where someone is making themselves look like an idiot, because inevitability, it happens.
-
-
-
- I know I looked like one last night so, let me explain myself. I have a few problems with, "The bus, driver and Church Day at King's Island," that I'll post further down, because there's no way I'm correcting it. This here's going to sound bitchy but the one thing I try to do, I get my head bitten off for. Yes, it was done in a rude way but it's how everyone speaks.
-
-
-
- My major problem is at the top, there's as of November 2006, the crash remains the worst bus crash in U.S. history. At the bottom of, "The bus, driver, and Church Day at King's Island," there's as of November 2006, this collision had the highest death and injury toll of any school bus crash in United States history; an accident near Prestonsburg, Kentucky in 1958 also claimed 27 lives, but not as many additional injuries. It's just a copy, paste, and slight edit job. Though... the bottom one does sound better, as "worst bus crash" is a bit odd sounding. If someone reads the entire article, it's a bit of a turn off. I know a lot of people that would just get aggravated by reading the same thing over and over.
-
-
-
- On the 'was/were' thing. Frankly, no matter what way I say it, whether I stand on my head and speak it backwards, for the original sentence passengers is plural, so everything that pertains to it must be too. The original sentence was none of the bus passengers was seriously injured by the collision itself (Which, by the way, you changed. Use the original example. And the other was, none was within reach from outside the bus so did you make one up?) and I changed it to were. That's because, like you figured out, passengers is plural. Even not one of the bus passengers was seriously injured doesn't make sense to me. Unless the sentence is somehow modified to make passengers single, then it won't ever make sense. The noun is plural, which means anything that can be plural which is a verb (pertaining to the noun, of course, and to be, was/were are both a verb. They're a copula too but in some contexts you can say, "He is" so they're verbs) inside the sentence should be too. No matter what, it should most likely be the thing that's used in common day speaking. You never hear someone during a conversation and I doubt either one of you will say the singular tense of it when someone says the plural. That'd be like saying you is here finally when it's one person, which might be grammatically correct (I'm admitting I have no idea) to someone who speaks common day English. You'd be looked upon as an idiot, if it is correct. If it's not, then yeah, it'd definitely get you some weird looks.
-
-
-
- Now. The things that I don't like but don't feel like fixing because if I do, it'll be wrong. There aren't many:
-
-
-
- As everyone showed up early that Saturday morning, those wanting to go on the trip had grown to more than originally anticipated. Something should be done because it reads at first like, "Because everyone showed up at the crack of dawn, there were a lot more people than anyone ever thought were going to come."
-
-
-
- It was certified as a school bus with an effective build date of March 23, 1977, which is when the chassis began production, as required by federal regulations. I... don't get why school bus was italicized in the sentence, and the same with the date. It isn't that important. And the fact that soon after, school bus is bolded /and/ linked to is a bit... odd. Maybe it can be rewritten as, "It was certified as a school bus with an effective build date of March 23, 1977, which is when the chassis began production, as required by federal regulations. Both the vehicle and the build date were important legal distinctions." Otherwise, it repeats.
-
-
-
- Lastly, many bodies were found facing the only exit, the rear door. There's two things. I don't know if it's grammatically correct but maybe many bodies were found facing the only usable exit - the rear door. I can't think of any other word besides usable right now, sorry. But you make it sound like the rear exit is the only one in existence, and then the comma just is too short of a break.
-
-
-
- So... now that I've written a damn book, I'm going to shut up.-Babylon pride 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Do we need this sentence?
"While this might seem remarkable to some, the victims were members of a church, and forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity." To me, this sentence seems to be unnecessary, redundant, and probably in violation of some rules as it seems like it's just a plug for Christianity. Should we take it out? --Duckfootx 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)