Abigail Rose Taylor

I created this new article on March 23, 2008. Please leave any questions or feedback on my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't Abigail Taylor be better? Death of Abigail Taylor sounds overly precise. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's try to get consensus. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

With regard to "galvanized", it may be an analogy that's in use in certain communities, but it's not one that I've ever heard, and I doubt that most people will make the connection, especially those for whom English is a second language. The WP manual of style recommends avoiding cliches, and this is clearly one. Perhaps "inspired" isn't really the most accurate word either. If someone can suggest a better alternative using plain language, then I'm open to suggestions. Meachly (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up any lingering doubt about "fatal" accident...it turns out that what she actually died of was cancer brought on by a triple organ transplant. Hence, it was the cancer that was fatal, not the pool accident. However, the intro does need some work to assert notability more quickly and firmly. Doc Tropics 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So let's use the word "stimulated"? Meachly (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the fatality of the accident, we could take that aspect out completely by adding something such as "which eventually resulted in her death" to the opening sentence. That establishes the accident as the cause, but not directly. Redrocket (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While I quite like the sound of the word galvanized and am normally all for using clever terms, that sentence is definitely not an appropriate place to use it, due to the ambiguity that the existence of galvanized pools creates. With the word in it, the sentence "Taylor's accident increased public awareness of pool safety and also galvanized pool safety advocates." can be parsed either as it is intended, or as saying that her accident publicized the safety problems inherent in metal-plated pools. --erachima formerly tjstrf 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty melodramatic use of the word. Sounds teenaged. Who are "pool safety advocates?" The PSA? And awareness of what, exactly? Magmagoblin (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I just came back here after a couple days off, and I was thrilled by the huge improvements in quality! Kudos to all for their efforts, and especially to Meachly for some really great contributions. Doc Tropics 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim "As she was less than ten years old, it was the legal responsibility of the parents to watch her", was backed by a refererence to an Australian publication, written by an Australian organisation. As such, it cannot be considered a reliable source regarding the laws of Minnesota, USA. Further, if this statement were true, then it would mean that no parent could ever legally employ a babysitter, childcarer or send their child to school. So I've removed this statement, until some reliable source about the laws of Minnesota indicates otherwise. Carmen56 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous version was better. It gave explicit details of who was doing what. Simply to say she was "unsupervised" implies there was nobody anywhere near the pool, which isn't true. I don't think the previous version implied any responsibility on anyone's part. It just said who was where. Carmen56 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)