User talk:Lominsky

Welcome![edit]

Hi Lominsky! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accident vs Crash[edit]

Please do not continue to unilaterally change "accident" to "crash" in articles. Wikipedia content reflects what is included in sources - if the sources use the term "accident" it should not be changed to "crash" to suit your personal preference. I will be reverting the ones you have done so far; they should only be restored on a case-by-case basis if crash is specifically used in the sources accompanying the article. Thank you, -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word accident implies nobody is at fault. A journalist writing an article about a crash may use the 'accident' colloquially, the words 'crash' or 'collision' more accurately describe what happened and are more regularly used by Departments of Transportation (in the US). Louis (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a preference. As I note here you will need community conensus to make mass changes across Wikipedia prior to implementing such changes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these articles aren't about Americans, though, so what American Departments of Transportation use doesn't apply to them. Skycloud86 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before. I see your point and I know AP now recommends this as well. But it hasn't caught on widely enough yet for a serious case to be made for changing the MOS. And the policy justification behind it isn't IMO as strong as it is for limiting the use of "murder" to cases where an actual conviction/guilty plea on that charge has been obtained. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from and I don't want to be a jerk about it. Is it a problem if I make changes on a case by case basis? For instance, on the Stephen King page it refers to his car accident, but in Maine they specifically use "crash" or "collision" Louis (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand where User:Lominsky is coming from, I disagree with his edits along these lines. In a purely legal sense, a legal "accident" is one without either intent or negligence. When I was in law school my torts professor would yell at any of us who used the word "accident" in class and force us to reword.

But that was a law school class, specifically focused on tort law, where the word "accident" has a very precise technical meaning. The passages that Lominsky is updating (for instance, a former kidnap victim being killed on his motorcycle are outside of this hypertechnical context. For example, Merriam-Webster defines accident as including "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". That is the sense that it is being used in the article, and that is the sense in which the vast majority of readers (who are not, for the most part, tort lawyers, law professors or first-year law students) will understand it. Yes, it also includes Lominsky's preferred definition of "law: an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought" but only in the context of law. The passages where I see Lominsky insisting on this meaning are not passages in this context, and the audience of the article is not looking for hypertechnical distinctions from an unrelated context -- tort law -- that is not applicable to that article. The use of "accident" here is not only completely unobjectionable; at least in the example I'm citing, and the one discussed above, it is far more clear than the alternatives. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my issue is that the word "accident" in common understanding has subjectiveness to it. We have used it in the context of traffic collisions enough that it is generally understood, but it still has the implication the it was just fate or bad luck. I am not saying that every crash is caused by recklessness, but there are other words that are actually neutral and can be used without the same issue. I think the Steven Stayner example is particularly egregious because the context is a hit-and-run. The phrase "hit-and-run" is already defined and understood by itself, so at best appending "accident" is redundant and at worst it carries the implication of faultlessness to the act of fleeing from a collision. Louis (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or... maybe that's your understanding and not the common understanding. Perhaps the common understanding is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance" (as documented in the Merriam-Webster dictionary) and "an unfortunate and typically unforeseen event, a disaster, a mishap" (as documented in the Oxford English dictionary).

I don't think you can take the connotations that appear for you in a word as universal and occurring for everyone. That's one of the reasons we work by consensus here, to get the benefit of multiple inputs. TJRC (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I realize that I came in hot and I won't do that again. But to be clear, this isn't something I just made up. It's well recognized and documented whether you agree or not. For reference: NYC, Portland Oregon, Michigan, Vermont, the American Journal of Public Health, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Library of Medicine, the National Union of Journalists, AAA. Louis (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was something you made up; in fact I provided a definition that agreed with you, but that indicated it was limited by context. I said it wasn't appropriate for the audience. The problem is not that it is made-up, but that it is limited by context, and your edits are all context-free. In other contexts, like government statements (not known for avoiding jargon) and law classes, it would be fine. And in some Wikipedia articles, say one about tort liability, it would be fine. But not for a Wikipedia article about a freed kidnap victim hit while riding on his motorcycle where the fine technical legal distinction between a true legal accident as a legal term, and a negligent collision is not material to the subject matter; especially when the article itself does not discuss that liability.

Outside of technical discussions, "accident" is a perfectly cromulent word for what's being described here. It is no accident (see what I did there?) that a Billy Bragg song says "with the money from her accident she got herself a mobile home"; that B.B. King sang "I remember once I was in an automobile accident..."; and that Al Stewart wrote a song about someone killed by a drunk driver, called "Accident on Third Street." A typical reader (that is, a member of the usual Wikipedia audience) know what an "accident" is just fine -- relying on the other definition I provided, the one that is not constrained to a legal context -- and there is no good reason to indiscriminately search out uses of the word "accident" to change it based on a single person's preference without regard to the all-important context. TJRC (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]