Talk:Carrollton bus collision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

It looks pretty good now. Nice work.

NPOV on bus collision[edit]

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)

Continued help requested[edit]

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)

Assistance[edit]

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)

Title[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The book[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from an unregistered user and my reply[edit]

NOTE: This was copied from User Talk: Vaoverland:

my classmates where there[edit]

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)[reply]

This sounds like a tenth grade history report.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Do we need this sentence?[edit]

"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)[reply]

There are so many problems with that sentence that I think it best to delete it. It starts off with pure conjecture: "While it might seem remarkable to some." It has previously been state that it was a church group involved in the collision. Strong vote to remove or edit the sentence. If it is indeed remarkable to some, then a source can be quoted and cited, thus preserving objectivity. SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sentence was intended to be a plug for Christianity, but instead, it is simply an explanation. The sentence does not promote any particular religious belief because forgiveness is not inherently attractive. In other words, readers are not more likely to become Christian simply because the article explains why these particular victims expressed a desire to forgive. The Wikipedia article on forgiveness explains the religious roots of the term from various religions. We should not presume that every Wikipedia reader will know that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity. At least some explanation is necessary; otherwise, readers will be left to wonder what motivated the victims' responses. The victims' comments were reported in the newspapers. Perhaps the sentence could be worded more directly, such as, "The victims were members of a church, and forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity." or alternatively, "Forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity." I don't see any conjecture or lack of objectivity with either statement. EditWatch88 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i agree that the sentence is worthwhile, the user above summed it up very well. however, the current version reads "The victims were members of a church, and Christianity teaches that forgiveness is a method for those affected to bring closure to such catastrophes", which i think is flat out incorrect - Christianity teaches simply forgiveness, it does not teach forgiveness as a method of closure. perhaps a particular pastor or church would encourage or suggest this, but it's not a tenet of Christianity. i think your above suggestion "The victims were members of a church, and forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity." is both more technically accurate and just as informative, though perhaps not as easily flowing as what is there. i'm going to switch it to that (or something close) for now, if you had a strong reason for choosing your current wording, feel free to change it back, please reply here though. - Shadowsill (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great page![edit]

I was driving on the same highway from Louisville to Florence and I saw the sign. I was really, really intrigued. After I got home I immediately looked up "carrollton bus accident" and one of the first things that came up was the Wikipedia page. The information was great and the story really got me researching more on the internet. I looked up pictures and information about the drunk driver. I just think this event really deserves a place on Wikipedia, so passersby on the highway who are genuinely interested can learn and never forget this tragedy. I think it would be good to have more information about the Prestonsburg crash on here as well.

Well, there is a new article idea. A big difference I see in the two crashes is that from Carrollton many things which needed to be changed afterwards from this tragedy. The horrible price paid by the victims and families got a lot of people (citizens and those in various roles of power and leadership) thinking "How may we keep these bad things which came together that night from happening?" As a result, many contributing aspects to the crash and the aftermath have been mitigated by new laws, safety and educational campaigns, equipments standard, and even new "WRONG WAY" signing campaigns at Intersate Highway off -ramps.
On first glance, the CBD would not have happened had their not been a drunk driver going the wrong way up the Interstate. Both of those items were obvious targets for preventative actions. However, people also had to realize that the bus passengers all survived the collision with a much smaller vehicle without major or life-threatening injury. So additional "what if" items start surfacing as contributary to the severity of the accident to driver and passengers on the bus. Such "What if" questions range from "What if the bus hadn't caught fire, filled with smoke, and burned so quickly" to "What if there had been more than one emergency exit, and what if even access to it hadn't been partially blocked by seat backs and a drink cooler in the aisles" Obviously, no one was likely to had evisioned in advance all of those factors coming together in such tragedy before the accident, but it was more uncomfortable to reconcile the answer to "Could it happen again?" To many industry and safety people, these questions became both haunting and motivating. The NTSB has made it clear it thinks there is still more to be done, although there have been major improvements in vehicle standards and actions to combat drinking and driving.
I'd be interested in knowing if anything was learned from the 1958 Prestonburg tragedy. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot from web sites I have been able to locate. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This accident wasn't in Carrollton[edit]

I live in Carrollton and everywhere we go even online the only reason people know our town is because of this bus crash. It was a long time ago and I would like to point out that for the record this crash did not happen in Carrollton. It correct "title" would be the "Carroll County Bus Crash" as it is most commonly known. The closest town to the crash was not even Carrollton it was a town called English, KY. But even still the crash did not take place within the city limits of any town in Carroll County. The people of Carrollton are tired of this assumption. The memorial signs don't even say anything about where it took place. They say "SITE OF THE FATAL BUS CRASH MAY 14 1988." I don't understand why Carrollton has to get blamed (and get a bad name - as that is the only thing we are known for) because of one man. We aren't all drinking and driving and causes major accidents. Not to mention that Larry Mahoney has truly learned his lesson and is extremely remorseful. Coming2epiphany 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)SRH[reply]

For better or worse Carrollton is going to get linked to the collision. Johnstown, Pennsylvania has many things going for it including being the home of the Johnstown Jets, but 100 years later the town is forever linked to the Johnstown Flood.

SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can document an acceptable source that shows why this incident should NOT refer to Carrollton, then document it and change the title. Keep in mind though that if OTHER good sources call this the Carrollton disaster/crash/etc, someone might document that and change it back. It's not uncommon for an event to be linked to the nearest notable town. Not as a mark for or against that town, but as a way to know where the thing happened. If it happened in Yonkers, people would say NYC. Tragic romance (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahoney vehicle[edit]

The article refers to Mahoney's vehicle as a black Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck. In actuality, according to the investigating Trooper and at least one news account, the vehicle was a black Toyota pickup truck.

Asperitus (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrollton Bus Collision? Or Disaster?[edit]

On December 29, 2007, a Wikipedia editor moved this page from its previous location at "Carrollton Bus Disaster" to a new page which he titled, "Carrollton Bus Collision." The phrase, "Carrollton Bus Disaster" now redirects to the present page. The editor left a note explaining the move, "The term 'disaster' is POV [Point of View]."

With all due respect to this editor, I simply cannot conceive how, using any reasonable standard, the deaths of 27 people and the serious injuries which coincided, could be referred to anything less than a "disaster." The whole idea behind DUI-related criminal prosecutions is that deaths and injuries which result are not accidental, but preventable. The drunk driver is held accountable, in a criminal sense, for his wanton behavior -- because he should have known that driving with such a high level of intoxication could result in death or physical injury. In my judgment, merely calling this horrible wreck a "collision" seriously depreciates the seriousness of the event (and crime) -- the vehicles did not merely "collide" with each another. I simply do not see how the term, disaster, is a biased description warranting the move under a new title. I propose that this article be returned to "Carrollton Bus Disaster." Is there any serious disagreement? EditWatch88 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do think maybe disaster isn't the best word to use, but for different reasons, having to do with connotations - wording that is technically correct could bring an incorrect image to the mind of the majority of readers. i don't have any real POV complaints, rather i think that "disaster" seems to sort of connote natural or inevitable causes (eg and earthquake or a building collapse are disasters). collision, on the other hand, i think is even worse, it connotes fender benders. personally, i would vote for "accident", "wreck", or "crash", but that's just my 2 cents. - Shadowsill (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a SPECIFIC definition of "disaster" online. From the ten-or-so definitions I did find, it seemed that any event with a lot of destruction or loss of life could be called a disaster, but it is the CONTEXT and the speaker's POINT OF VIEW that determines whether it is called a disaster. Would we call 27 dead enemy soldiers a disaster? But using common sense, "disaster" gets used for any multiple loss of innocent life. So while it's perhaps technically POV, it might be nit-picking in this case. Also, there are numerous Wikipedia articles labelling events disasters (e.g., Chernobyl, Bhopal, space shuttles Columbia and Challenger, etc.) and there are even whole categories called disasters (e.g., environmental, industrial). Seems to me that either disaster or collision works fine. Tragic romance (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Mahoney's injuries[edit]

Twice in this article (and in numerous newspaper sources) it says the pickup truck driver had only minor injuries. Yet the NTSB's report said he was "seriously injured," and other sources say he was unconscious until he awoke the next day in a hospital. I tried numerous sources but I can't find exactly what his injuries were. So which is it? Tragic romance (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year after the above, I see there's no resolution as to how badly Mahoney was injured. To keep things simple, I've removed both "serious" and "minor" from the page. It's known that he was injured, so that will ahve to suffice. a_man_alone (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the deadliest bus accident.[edit]

The fifth paragraph ends by stating this is tied for the most deadly bus accident in the U.S. with 27 fatalities. The Yuba City bus accident of 1976 had 28 fatalities. This inaccuracy concerning the Kentucky accidents is also found in multiple inaccurate newspapers accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.166 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25th anniversary of 1988 Carrollton bus collision[edit]

I have added
1988 – Carrollton bus collision: a drunk driver traveling the wrong way on Interstate 71 near Carrollton, Kentucky, United States hits a converted school bus carrying a church youth group. 27 die the in the crash and ensuing fire.

To Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 14 to be shown on the main page for the 25th anniversary of this event. Not sure if I should have but I think it should be on the main page that day would like to make sure it stays. Theworm777 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess there is too many problems with the article to be used this was added to my talk page :

"Hi, you added the Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision article to May 14's OTD. Please note that the article has a yellow-level maintenance tag on it, which means that unless the problem is taken care of, it won't appear on the Main Page. Thanks." by howcheng
Theworm777 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carrollton bus collision. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Cadillac[edit]

I noticed there's no mention of a 1977 Sedan Deville that was also involved in the accident, even though the occupants in the car were OK but the car was damaged.

TVSRR (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Unincorporated'[edit]

I find the use of this word distracting. It's in the first sentence and it just seems hugely irrelevant to me. Thisisfutile (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it distracting? It's pointing out that it occurred in a rural area of the county that isn't part of any township. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get all that from "unincorporated"? To me, it sounds as irrelevant as pointing out the county is shaped like an UGG boot. Why not make it read "rural area", like you just did to explain it to me. I'm 50 years old and I've never heard the term unincorporated in reference to a county. I've lived in rural counties all my life to boot (no UGG pun intended). Thisisfutile (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description is correct, I don't believe it should be changed simply because some people don't understand what an unincorporated area is. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the word 'rural' in the history? It was removed at one point in favor of this ridiculous, 6-sylable word that only a few will glean information from. I guess the 6-sylable part is what get's all the authors excited here...sounds fancy, and really important.
By the way, I love your use of the word "simply" (smell that irony. One of the most important things written in the history of the USA is linked here with relative analysis ... https://patch.com/connecticut/durham/the-memorable-monosyllables-of-lincolns-gettysburg-address
tl;dr Simple is better. Thisisfutile (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating your unfamiliarity with the word with "it's distracting/irrelevant." Pointing out that this is an unincorporated region is more accurate. "Simpler is better" is not universally true.
Also don't insult other editors by insinuating they're trying to use "fancy" words to feel important. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly agree with Thisisfutile's reasoning, but "rural" does seem like the better word to me. Municipal incorporation in the US is an arbitrary distinction. Places like East Los Angeles and Paradise, Nevada are unincorporated, yet they're far from rural.
If the point is to convey to the reader that this happened in a rural area, then it's better to just use the word "rural". For the purposes of this article, it doesn't really matter whether or not services in the area are provided by the city or by the county. What matters is that it happened in a place that was remote and sparsely populated. A place that could be described as "rural". Surachit (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to identify the location. The county is listed, and since readers may expect a municipality to be listed, the article specifies unincorporated so that the reader will know that it is outside any municipality. I doubt that rural/urban has anything to do with it, but then again I live in an area where there can be unincorporated urban areas along with incorporated rural municipalities. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 20:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think describing the location as "rural" would be more informative to international readers. If the article says "rural Carroll County" and no municipality is listed, I would think most people would understand that it happened outside of a municipality.
The word "unincorporated" doesn't really help to identify the location. I don't think most people are going to be familiar with which parts of Carroll County, KY are incorporated and which parts are not. Surachit (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit that when I started this discussion, I came to the park to feed the pigeons and then ran in, flinging whole slices of bread directly at the them. Obviously, I'm not a salesman or even a good advocate for a cause (thanks to The Hand That Feeds You for pecking me on the head). I now see that it would have been more convincing if I had walked in slowly, sprinkling breadcrumbs behind me. Nevertheless, after reading Surachit's argument, then seeing ALL IN vacillate, and ultimately hearing no rebutle to surachit's final comment, it would seem that rural would be the better, more accurate choice. Agreed? Thisisfutile (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been some controversy over the signs."[edit]

That's a statement about the memorial sign, but the article doesn't say what's so controversial about it. The source for that claim merely says that some residents wanted the sign to be taken down, but it doesn't say why. I don't think that "controversial" or "controversy" are good words to reflect the statement from the source. Some residents not being happy with a sign seems to be too "harmless" to be called a "controversy". There may be other sources that go into detail about the reasons for wanting the sign to be taken down. Maybe those other sources would indeed show something worth being called a controversy, but the current source doesn't seem to support such a strong word. Nakonana (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement. A claim like that needs more than a passing mention of a disagreement from a single source. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carrollton_bus_collision&oldid=1206557731"