Talk:Humboldt Broncos bus crash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone even bother to read our guidelines anymore before creating articles. How about NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, 10YT. This is undoubtedly a tragic accident. And it is understandably getting a lot of immediate attention. But what are the odds of this being SUSTAINED? What is the likely long term significance of this event? Ten years from now how is this going to be more than a footnote in the history of tragic highway accidents? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

After spending some time looking at traffic safety (and death) statistics for developed countries I now believe that the number of fatalities in this case is so far outside the norm as to establish notability, if perhaps only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: respectfully, and with understanding of WP:OSE, if you feel the article is inappropriate you should take it to WP:AFD where it'll surely be a speedy keep along with the litany of other irrelevant, barely above stub, orphaned disaster stories which litter Wikipedia. You're fighting an uphill battle. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since it was speedily created w/o any consideration for WP:BREAKING, and out of deference to WP:RAPID, I am going to wait a few days to see how this play out. But unless something pops up that alters the landscape vis a vis WP:PAG I most likely will send this to AfD at some point. As for fighting an uphill battle, I've been doing that for as long as I've been on the project. But until unless the guidelines are changed, I will try to uphold them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems obviously notable to me. Events such as this generally continue to receive coverage for decades. Compare the Swift Current Broncos bus crash article linked from this one, where the event received an ESPN article 20 years later and a memorial was built 30 years later. It seems unreasonable to me to expect this event not to receive coverage decades from now. Calathan (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the biggest sports-related disaster in a major English-speaking country's history. This will dominate that country's news for at least a week. It is certainly worthy of an article. Even if no one else dies, there is a larger death toll than some in the List of disasters in Canada by death toll that have dedicated articles. It is really a no-brainer. Teikovo (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)teikovo.

I will concede that the exceptionally high death toll for a traffic accident in a developed country is the one thing that makes me think this might ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a lot of words I could offer about this thread. I'll just use two: utterly ignorant. Resolute 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This event is receiving considerable international attention. It is obviously notable.Rkehler3 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's absurd to think that the death of an entire hockey team will not have long standing repercussions. Granted I admit that there is the possibility that nothing comes to pass, but likely repercussions for this event involve the existence of the Broncos team itself, the stability of the SJHL, highway safety at intersections in rural Saskatchewan, and obviously the possible legal ramifications for the semi driver and their company if they survive this incident and are found negligent. Basing the argument about notability on "whether or not an accident will be a footnote in history in ten years" would invalidate a majority of these types of articles. Maybe that's a discussion Wikipedia should have, but that's a policy decision that needs to be had elsewhere. --PlasmaTwa2 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

How could you be so bloody ignorant? I can’t believe you would even bring this up. I personally knew one of the team members who passed away. Let me tell you, this is a massive deal not only in Saskatchewan, but in Canada where essentialy every city, big or small, revolves around Hockey. User:Martinillo (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 UTC

@Martinillo:, I agree 100%. Here in Toronto every person I saw today was sad as hell...not even able to talk about it yet. I'm so sorry for your personal loss. This is an overwhelming nation-wide Canadian tragedy. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow:, Thank you so much, I do not edit super often, but I do know the rules and this was just completely absurd, I am glad you can relate and sympathize. One of the players played for my hometown team a couple years ago and I became friends with him as I was actively involved with the team. User:Martinillo (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2018 UTC

hat request

Could somebody who knows how please hat the above section? It's getting heated and causing needless upset to people, and the concerns initially raised appear to have been fully resolved. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

NO!, anon. This is Canada and we have free speech. The discussion above may seem "heated" to you, but it absolutely is nothing other than civilized and reasonable responses to some initial and inaccurate opinions. Believe me, there is nothing "heated" about the discussion above. Please don't try to interfere with the discussion again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Actually it is getting a tad heated. And no, this isn't Canada. It's Wikipedia. In any case the discussion seems to have run its useful course and we have reached WP:CONSENSUS on the issues initially raised. The discussion doesn't need to be hatted, but it probably should be closed by an uninvolved editor. On a side note I apologize if my initial concerns were seen as disrespectful. Terrible tragedies occur daily all over the world. Our job as editors is to try and evaluate them dispassionately on the basis of PAG and determine whether they merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. On a personal note I am horrified by this event and extend my sympathies to all those effected and my prayers for the dead and their survivors. Memory eternal! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

An intersection-level map would be a good idea, to show the configuration of the intersection of the crash, and some photos of the intersection. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a map that shows the crash site in relation with the two towns. The intersection is fairly unremarkable, 35 is a north-south highway and 335 is east-west. I think an intersection-level map of the site wouldn't be too useful, considering it's going to look like a + with a dot in the middle. That being said, anyone is welcome to add it using OSM Location map template. Acebulf (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A photo on the ground might help, as there appears to be a stand of trees at the SE corner of the intersection which may have blocked the lines of sight of the two drivers. But, will probably have to wait until the RCMP are done at the crash site. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A drone shot would be absolutely mint. If someone in Saskatchewan has a drone and some free time it would likely make a great addition to the article. Even simple photos of the intersection would certainly be of great help in contextualizing the incident. Acebulf (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Injured/death toll

The article states under 'Events' that, "According to the RCMP, the bus carried twenty-nine individuals at the time of the accident, including the driver, with fifteen being killed and fourteen suffering injuries (three of them critically)." I'm not entirely sure if this is correct. 14 were initially killed in the accident, one later died in hospital. That would make the death toll 15, but if I understand correctly the one who later died in hospital was one of the 3 critically injured. That would mean that 3 of the 15 injured were critically injured, one of which died from their injuries. I'll be making the edit to display such. Nanerz (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath section wording

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are your thoughts on the following line: "The President of the United States Donald Trump phoned Trudeau, and subsequently tweeted,..."?

Should it be "President of the United States Donald Trump phoned Trudeau, and subsequently tweeted,..." or left the way it is? I believe it to be grammatically correct the first way, finding the second to be seemingly incomplete.

I am asking as that is what an IP editor appears to believe. I initially added back the "The" as it appeared to have accidentially been removed (since the majority of their edit was adding information about Royal condolences), however, they have since removed it again. Because of this, I am seeking some consensus here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I get where the IP is coming from, and I have seen sentences worded like that, however, I believe "the" in front makes sense. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference, but I'd prefer having the anon version, or The President of the United States, Donald Trump, ... (note commas), if "The" is chosen. Acebulf (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I also don't have a strong preference over such a small grammar addition but if the consensus is to go with "the" in front, I don't mind the version with the commas as Acebulf added above. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither do I. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location map order

Should the order of the maps be switched? The Saskatchewan map is pretty nondescript compared to, let's say, a Quebec map, where the shape could be recognized by more people. The Canada map might be more helpful for the majority of users. Isa (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I updated the OSM location map below the infobox to better contextualize the proximity to other big cities in Sask. I think that might alleviate some of your concerns. If it's possible to add Saskatoon in relation to the crash site in the infobox that would be great! Acebulf (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Acebulf: Even adding Saskatoon to the OSM map wouldn't really make a difference. Both maps are closeups and provide no useful information to someone not familiar with the geography of Saskatchewan. There's no context of where this is happening within Canada. I still think putting the national map first in the location map template (just changing Saskatchewan#Canada to Canada#Saskatchewan) would be better. Isa (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Anyone who wants to see it at the national level can click on the button to expand on it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Misidentitfication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just saw this article: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/humboldt-bus-crash-body-misidentified-xavier-labelle-is-alive-parker-tobin-dead/wcm/bab9b280-36e4-4adc-bfb2-13565d8d448b

The list will need to be updated. So sad. Larla77 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017(UTC)

This is the unfortunate reality of reporting the news live, so quickly after the event. Before anything is posted, let's make sure we get confirmation from other news sources, such as the CBC or CTV.Rkehler3 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple news outlets now confirming this. Change has been made.Rkehler3 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other accident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone added this information into the article: "About 20 years earlier, a British Columbia family of six were killed at the same intersection. The ill-fated bus passed a 6 cross memorial just seconds before the collision." Which I feel is notable but it was placed in the opening paragraph under "Accident" right before the RCMP information which I felt was odd. Should this be placed under "See Also" or somewhere else on the page? This could go under aftermath as the article describes how there is now a call for better safety on the highway.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Eh, my gut is saying we shouldn't mention it unless it becomes widely associated with this current event in the media. A few outlets mentioning it isn't enough; if it gains enough traction, then maybe we put it in, and certainly if it sparks a discussion about this intersection being especially dangerous (some in the world are notable for the risk motorists take in crossing them, but so far I don't know if this is one of them). I would say which section it should be put in depends on which aspect of the event it becomes most associated with, if indeed it becomes associated with any of them - do people note it as a sad coincidence leading up to the accident, or is it notable because that intersection seems especially prone to deadly accidents? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)}_{(Follow my trail)} 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (x3) @HickoryOughtShirt?4: I just loaded up this talk page to ping you with that link. I am leary of it being in the "See Also" section as that is usually used for links. In the area of the aftermath section you described sounds like potentially a good idea. Let's see if others chime in in the next little while. It The current Humboldt crash is all over the news here in Canada (how I found this article to begin with). I shall watch this discussion closely. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC); edited 06:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Sounds good. I'm in Canada too but I never heard about the earlier accident until I stumbled across this page. This specific article only mentions the accident that happened 20 years ago but I'll see if anything else shows up. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

One problem having the criteria of "unless it becomes widely associated with this current event in the media" is that, if followed, Wikipedia would have minimal facts. Much of Wikipedia are facts that are only cited in maybe 2 sources. How about that Prime Minister Justin taught in Vancouver? That is not a widely associated fact. However, it's a potential fact for Wikipedia. How about some of his Ministers? Many Canadians can't name them so they are not widely associated. The British Columbia deaths is useful to know because it was a mass death at the same site, same accident and caused a flashing red light to be installed. You watch, they may put in a traffic light next, the full red, yellow, green. I didn't know about the 6 death until today then I saw it in multiple places. Ugh. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: clarified above response. Until this evening's news, I hadn't heard of the incident 20 years ago either (didnt mean to imply I had, I was referring to the current Humboldt crash). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it triggered important change, that is a powerful argument for mentioning it. I admit I did not see that part. However, we must keep WP:UNDUE in mind; we can say it happened and inspired this that or the other change, but we can't go too deep discussing it. I also think it's more relevant to information about the intersection itself, so we can say the intersection has a flashing red light nowadays because of that previous accident that happened there. Just saying another deadly accident happened there and putting that fact just anywhere isn't enough; deadly accidents happen all the time at various intersections. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, especially because the article cited gives a detailed description about the intersection including a map. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone else added it to the article so this disucsison can be closed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mechanism of collision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article states: "The bus suffered a T-bone collision with the truck where the truck hit the front side of the bus resulting in both vehicles ending on their side.[1]"

It may be a small point, but while the two vehicles collided at 90 degrees, we don't know yet that the truck hit the bus, and not the other way around. From pictures I've seen, the front half of the tractor is intact, whereas the trailer and the front half of the bus are not, suggesting it was the bus that hit the truck and trailer.

For these reasons, I think the article should be reworded to simply say that the two collided.Swaff (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Swaff: I support this line being removed or modified. It seems that the source used in [1] is based on hearsay anyway. Acebulf (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. I kept that the initial speculation was that the truck T-boned the bus, since that was part of the developing story, but I made it clear that it was speculative. Personally, I think that the picture of the semi-trailer, showing very little damage to its front, supports the argument that the bus hit the trailer, but that's for the RCMP accident reconstructionists to determine, not us. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adesh Deol Trucking Ltd.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article identifies the truck company involved and has a lot of details about it. At a minimum, the fact its operations are suspended seems like relevant info. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added. Thank you 2.28.13.227! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some more details

This source clarifies that the suspension was automatic, and qualifies the trucker's 'uninjured' status to confirm he suffered psychological injuries for which he is receiving treatment. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I editied it to show that the suspension was automatic and just standard procedure. I don't know where the drivers health would fit in so I left it alone for now.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Might make sense somewhere around the mention of counselors for the youngsters? Something about the truck driver also receiving psychiatric help. I agree, though, it should go somewhere but doesn't neatly fit anywhere in particular. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a sentence under "Crash" that says this: "The RCMP advised that the driver was being provided with mental health and wellness assistance" so maybe that could just be added there. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, add a small bit about him confirmed as receiving ongoing treatment there. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I added this "The bus driver later confirmed he was receiving psychological support since being released." Feel free to make any changes. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Normally I just add directly but this talk page has been really constructive. This is a great example of how going via talk created a more thought through addition. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Eye witness account

Crash survivor Ryan Straschnitzki has stated to the media in an interview that the bus broadsided the semi, therefore creating a t-bone collision. Can someone please update this information as it is relevant to the scope of the crash' background. Thanks. Reference @ http://edmonton.citynews.ca/2018/04/09/humboldt-crash-survivor-what-happened/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.244.27 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I missed something but the ref mentions this “I just remember sitting there on my phone and all of a sudden our bus driver screamed ‘woah!’ and a semi-truck pulled up in front of us,” It doesn't even say "t-bone" in the reference. Is this being based off of the "pulled up in front of us" quote? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. The truck pulled in front, therefore they hit the truck on it's side. This observation can be defined on the following Wikipedia page @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_collision

Photographs of the scene also clearly show the semi was not hit in the front, but having an eye witness stating the truck was in front clarifies this. Obviously I would not expect an inexperienced person to know the specific name for this collision but the fact remains that is what it was. This also follows the Wikipedia article for types of collisions @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_collision_types — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.244.27 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're suggesting something like this (bolded is what will be added): "Photos of the scene shown in a video released by a news agency reveal that the front of the bus was obliterated, while the front of the truck was undamaged. One of the survivors said the semi-truck pulled up in front of bus so the bus hit the truck on its side." Or, alternatively so it is not so repetitive, the whole sentence can be changed from "photos" to "Photos of the incident and an eyewitness account say..." HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Something along those lines seems reasonably more accurate then just stating the bus collided with the semi. You could even use the words "broadsided the semi" instead of saying the "the bus hit the semi on the side". Thanks for taking the time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.244.27 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Added this "One of the survivors described how the bus broadsided the semi, further confirming the photos account of the incident." Feel free to tweak it, you seem more knowledgable about accidents than me. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Due to the high profile of this incident, it is very likely that eventually there will be a public report of the investigation and there will be reliable documentation of what happened. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be useful. Eyewitness accounts, at least in law, are iffy sometimes so a reliable source would be beneficial. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)