Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:57, 30 March 2008

Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Minnesota Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

"Freak accident"

A "freak" accident is one which could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented. This type of accident is very common, so the word "freak" is incorrect. Use of the the term by the popular press does not change these facts. Meachly (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would respond that: (1) the term "freak accident" is cited and sourced, whether we agree or disagree with its use; (2) this type of accident is indeed not "very common" which, in fact, is why the Taylor story made the news; and (3) this certainly falls under the type of bizarre / odd circumstances that most people would indeed (rightly or wrongly) term a "freak accident". That's my opinion on this issue. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Well I've updated the page to explain why you use the word in the article. Just saying "it was a freak accident" is very POV. Here in Australia, it is certainly common knowledge that this can happen. There are regular public awareness campaigns to make sure that parents don't allow their children to sit on the drain of a pool, and pool designs of the type where this is possible have been illegal for almost 20 years. So in summary I disagree that "most" people would think that it's a "freak". However I've kept this word in the article, but I've made explicit the reasons for keeping it. Thanks. Meachly (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says there are 15 other documented cases in the U.S. from 1980 to 1996. That certainly qualifies as a "freak" accident if it's only happened 15 times in a population of hundreds of millions in 16 years. That's less than one per year. There are truly "freak" ways of dying that happen more than once per year in the U.S.

That being said, the article doesn't need to say it's a freak accident, nor does it have to criticise this characterisation. To maintain NPOV, all that needs to be said is "some have characterised this as a freak accident" or something to that effect, without using biased language to suggest this is correct or incorrect. Good Ol’factory 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, "freak" doesn't mean that it's uncommon. It means that it's not reasonably foreseeable. Your second paragraph is true. But the fact that the parents have sued means that they don't think it was a freak. So I've noted this point accordingly. Meachly (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but uncommonness is a major factor in determining whether something is reasonably foreseeable. Good Ol’factory 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made the classic Fallacy of the Consequent error! "Freak accidents are uncommon. This accident was uncommon. Therefore this accident was freak". Let's try to be objective about this issue. A meteorite falling on someone's head could reasonably be considered a "freak accident", because it is a) uncommon; and b) unforeseeable. But any sensible person in a position of responsibility would (or should) know that if you present part of your body to a powerfull vacuum pump, then a serious injury is likely to result. The source that we're citing is an example of deliberate sensationalism by a tabloid journalist. If we really must use that word, then by all means do so. But don't let's drop our own standards to match the source we're quoting. Meachly (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware

If I did not want to violate any of Misplaced Pages's rules, I might say something like the following. Meachly is here just to create chaos. Each and every word in the article absolutely must get approval through him / her first. He / she has an argument for every single word in the article, each and every one. So, please check and double check with him / her first. Any and all words placed in the article -- or even considered for placement -- need to be approved through him / her first. He / she is the King / Queen of all that is Misplaced Pages and, I believe, owns this article and owns Misplaced Pages in general. Please abide by Meachly's dictates. Thanks. However, I do not want to violate any rules and I also want to assume good faith. So, I guess that I would have to retract that thought? Is that how it works? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

• Redirect-Class biography pages
• Redirect-Class Minnesota pages
• NA-importance Minnesota pages