Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

Allision

Listen there was an argument about this and no one in the world has heard of the term “Allision” Please use simple English! And I don’t care if Allision is the right term 99.9% of people have not heard Of it! And if we are going to have a big argument about this then we should this put “crash related damage to Dali and its cargo”2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean allision I think. Allison is someone else. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes let me fix that 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed my comment 2605:8D80:32D:6A6B:89C8:84E8:1A58:8055 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the header too. Take a look at the archive for the discussion. I agree with you on the general point, but didn't prevail. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

ok its fixed 2604:3D09:A984:F000:E5F0:24F5:CFBA:2F42 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the most recent discussion about it that I could find. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

i know about this i read it and they chaged it but now it is allision again 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed to collison do not change 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

someone changed it 2604:3D09:A984:F000:DC2C:AA35:5DB8:EAA1 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A moving ship struck a stationary object, which is the definition of allision. While the word may not be as commonly known as "collision", it's valid and not unnecessarily complicated vocabulary and it's not evident that it qualifies as technical language or jargon. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of collision does involves two moving objects. "Allison" is obscure technical jargon. May I suggest an alternative:

• Change "Loss of propulsion on ship, leading to collision with pier and subsequent collapse of the bridge truss." to "Loss of propulsion and steering control, leading to ship hitting pier and the collapse of the bridge truss."

• Change "Collision-related damage to Dali and its cargo" to "Damage to Dali and its cargo from impact and bridge collapse"

These are both plain language and, I believe, more accurate.--17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the way it's done now: using the correct technical term ("allision") with the definition in a note. It's precise and easily understandable. PRRfan (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the use of "allision". All it makes me think about is the stereotypical nerdy boy at school who kept correcting other people's grammar. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the term "allision" given that it is actually an accepted term in this context and isn't overly complex or jargony. The summary for Air France Flight 447 is "Entered high-altitude stall; impacted ocean" and not "plane crashed because too slow" for a reason. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 22:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed a large volume of edits in Recent Changes coming from this article, and this looks like an edit war is in progress, at least to me. I don't want this to escalate to the edit warring noticeboard and I do not want anyone to get blocked, or the page to get protected. I hope the anonymous editor will consider using the talk page to reach consensus before edits regarding the wording are made. I do not want to take sides, but placing a warning that is visible in the final rendering of the article is not not okay. Thanks, CpX41 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether we might come to consensus by doing this:

1. Leave the lead paragraph as is (the bridge "...collapsed after the container ship Dali struck one of its piers").
2. Replace "allision" in the Background section with "collision". The word currently appears in a dependent clause that's meant to be read over quickly; replacing it with the more common term makes for a smoother read.
3. Replace "allision" in the Timeline section with "collision".
4. Replace "collision" in the infobox's "Cause" line with "allision" and the note; this is a good place to use the precise, correct term and offer an explanation
5. Delete "allision" in the infobox's "Damage" line so the bullet point becomes "Damage to Dali and its cargo".

This would reduce the use of "allision" to a single prominent instance, allowing the article to use the correct term and make the distinction without unduly taxing the reader. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Provided that the reader gets a definition of what "allision" means in context (I would make it a wikilink, there is a redirect in place already) I don't see any reason to not do this. CpX41 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that general approach, except that the (same?) note should be linked to an early use of "allision" in the main text. Not all readers read infoboxes, and many will come to the page having already read the word elsewhere, indeed in our own references. Davidships (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea; perhaps you can suggest where and how "allision" should be placed in the text. PRRfan (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I had some time to think about it, what would probably be the best option is to leave it in the infobox and replace it everywhere else in the text. On one hand, the text should be easy to understand to the average person, but on the other, this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. CpX41 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

One more thought: what if we use it just once in the main text, like so: "...at the time of the collision (in legal terms, allision), the ship was..." PRRfan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) PRRfan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I do like this more than my proposal, I am going to replace "allision" with "collision" in the timeline table. CpX41 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Done! Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Allision is not a legal term. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

While not looking to resurrect a discussion about allision vs. collision, I don't think the wording is great – infobox is fine, but the article body says "in legal terms, allision" immediately followed by the footnote which describes it as "maritime terminology". There are two problems here – one of repetition/redundancy (why say something inline then effectively say it again in the footnote?) and one of contradiction (we're not being clear as to whether it's legal or maritime terminology – or, indeed, both). I propose that we remove the footnote from the article body and reword to "(in maritime terms, allision)" per this edit. Thoughts? MIDI (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Your point is well-taken. It seems "allision", while primarily used in the sphere of maritime law, is actually not strictly either a maritime nor a legal term. Google "allision" and most of the top hits are law firms explaining the term. Wikipedia's own definition begins "In maritime law..." But check Merriam-Webster and its definition says neither "legal" nor "maritime" ("1. obsolete : the action of dashing against or striking upon; 2: the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collision".) We might change the footnote to say "A crash between two moving vessels is a collision; a crash between a moving vessel and a stationary object, such as a bridge, is an allision. The distinction is most often useful in maritime law."

I'm not wedded to having the footnote in the body and the infobox, but if we removed it from the body, I think we'd still need to offer an explanation. This could be just a wikilink to Admiralty_law#Allision, but I don't find it objectionally redundant to have the note in two places. PRRfan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the note and body text; thanks. PRRfan (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

One more missing body found May 1

You may want to include this info from the Bridge Response website: [1] Denniss (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

On it. Glen Burnie is really close to where I grew up, and my older brother worked construction. He knows a lot of people in really similar situations to these workers. I've been interested in transport disasters for years, never thought something like this would happen to my hometown. Apelcini (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"is likely to approve"

Hi, @CommonKnowledgeCreator. Thanks for your diligent work in adding to this important article! I think this is getting ahead of things, however: "On May 2, officials at Willis Towers Watson, the bridge's insurance broker, stated that Chubb Limited, the bridge's insurer, was likely to approve a $350 million insurance claim for the state government." To be sure, Willis Towers Watson is in a position to know what Chubb is going to do—and even they can't say for sure. So this is fodder for a daily newspaper, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. No one is going to look back in a year and want to know, "What did Chubb's broker say before Chubb made its payout?" We can note it if and when it happens. PRRfan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary for this diff, the AP news story from today uses much more definitive language about the insurance claim being approved. Apologies for not discussing on the talk page first. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @CommonKnowledgeCreator. No apologies necessary! But even if Chubb is "in the process of approving" the payout (which is what the Wall Street Journal said in the first place), there is, as they say, many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. The payout hasn't happened yet; citing predictions that it will happen, however likely it seems, is news reporting, not encyclopedic documentation. Here's another way of looking at it: if, say, the payout comes tomorrow, we're going to erase "Chubb's broker said they'd pay the money" and write "Chubb paid the money". We should strive to build our encyclopedia without sentences that we can anticipate having to change in a day or two. PRRfan (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. If you feel that strongly, we can wait. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool; thanks. By the way, if you were to point out that I'm not objecting to "On May 2, Maryland Department of Transportation officials said they plan to replace the bridge by fall 2028 at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion", I would say, "Touché!" But I would also argue that a) the DOT estimate probably won't change for months and b) it's actually useful to note what officials said so we can record how much over (or under) budget and schedule the project ultimately runs. PRRfan (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Jargon

The word "allision" does not exist in normal English usage. No other article on Wikipedia even uses the word. The word "collision" is unambiguous, clear and correct. Throwing in another obscure word with almost identical meaning adds absolutely nothing to anyone's understanding of what happened. Szpilt (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the previous long allision-vs.-collision discussion can be avoided altogether by using another word, like impacted or struck. See thesaurus entries. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with those words. There is also nothing wrong with the word "collision". Any option which is accurate, normal English should be used in preference to a word that is vanishingly rare and only occurs in specialised literature. Szpilt (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Not joining the discussion as I don't think there's anything new to the previous discussions on this wording, but I've reverted the article to how it was before this discussion began; the multiple discussions on this topic show that we should be discussing proposed changes before implementing them. MIDI (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing in previous discussions that indicates any actual consensus to use this jargon. Szpilt (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but making changes to this content without discussion – when it has been discussed before – is not the way to go about it. Perhaps {{ping}}ing users from the previous discussions will help? MIDI (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

No other article on Wikipedia even uses the word. An exaggeration - there are at least half a dozen articles using allision or allide to describe such events. Not many ≠ zero. - Davidships (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ship collision, Cosco Busan oil spill, Ruby Princess, Marine insurance, Seven Seas Voyager, West Jefferson Avenue–Rouge River Bridge, for starters. PRRfan (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't practice admiralty law, but I have encountered it several times and the term "allision" is commonly used in the literature. Garner's Modern Legal Usage (3rd ed. 2011) covers it. See the entries on "allide" and "collision". Search for "allision" in the case law database on Google Scholar and you'll see that it's used a lot in admiralty cases. Whenever a ship crashes into a stationary object, people who work with or on ships for a living call it an allision. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And everyone else calls it a collision. Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia for people who work with or on ships for a living. The word is not used in normal English. Szpilt (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Szpilt: It is somewhat disingenuous to boldly remove allision in other articles without discussion, and while the question is still under active discussion here. That looks POINTY to me. - Davidships (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It is no such thing. To merit the attack that you have made, I would have had to do something like add even more obscure and specialised terminology to this article. And if you think it's disingenuous to remove the term somewhere else while it's being discussed here, then it's also disingenuous to go about adding it. Szpilt (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It was already in Ruby Princess, but as it was in a heading (where wiki-links are not permitted), I adjusted the nearest convenient text to allow the useful link. - Davidships (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; @Szpilt: removing allision from other articles [2][3][4] isn't the way to build consensus. PRRfan (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that one should not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. Szpilt (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Szpilt. We have an excellent essay Wikipedia:Writing better articles that advises: Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader. I am a 72 year old native speaker of the English language with a bachelor's degree and 15 years of experience editing Wikipedia. Until I came across this discussion, I had never heard the word "allision" and would have had zero idea of its definition. Also, WP:JARGON links to a section of the Manual of Style that says Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do, which is perfectly applicable here. Accordingly, I support removing "allision" from this article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To respond to User:Szpilt and User:Cullen328: Following your logic, we should be purging nearly all of Wikipedia because the vast majority of those terms are not used in normal English. For example, the word "tensor" isn't used in normal English. The concept is extremely difficult to understand for anyone who never mastered linear algebra—which is nearly all of the human population (including myself). But it's kind of important because the Einstein tensor is part of the Einstein field equations which form the general theory of relativity. Similarly, mondegreen is virtually unknown and is rarely used outside of a small community of intellectuals (as distinguished from the larger communities of musicians or music fans). For example, one rarely sees mondegreen in Billboard, where one would expect such a term to be used because being misheard is a very common problem for musicians. But we have an article on it anyway.

Here's another one: Following your logic, we shouldn't use port and starboard because no one other than sailors and naval veterans actually uses those terms. But we use them anyway because that's the standard terminology in the maritime context. Many Wikipedia articles on naval battles refer to passing to "port" or "starboard" instead of the "left" or "right" of the ship.

And another one: Personal watercraft. The only people who regularly use that term are people who manufacture or sell the things, as well as lawyers who deal with PWC accidents. I have never heard anyone in a casual context (let alone movies or television) say: "Let's go for a ride on my personal watercraft this weekend." Ordinary people refer to genericized brands like jet skis or ski-doos.

The last time I checked, the community consensus was that the English Wikipedia is written in formal written English and we would have a separate Simple English Wikipedia for people with a limited grasp of English. The better approach is to use the correct terminology in maritime articles, and then use hyperlinks to connect to an explanation of what the terms mean. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, this is not an article about a highly technical topic like linear algebra or the theory of relativity. It is an article about a newsworthy event - a ship colliding with a bridge. The vast majority of English readers know what port and starboard mean. Anybody can easily figure out what "personal watercraft" means. As for "mondegreen", I have run across that term many times and it is the topic of an article, not jargon thrown into another article. This word "allision" is incomprehensible jargon to the vast majority of the readers of this general purpose article, and a more recognizable synonym should be used instead. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll repeat: "allision" is an obscure admiralty law distinction. We should not be using lawspeak for straightfoward descriptions of events in an encyclopedia meant for the 99.9% of readers who've never encountered it before, distracting from the actual point of the article. We don't use it anywhere else in the encyclopedia that I've found (I've looked, and it appears only in technical references), and I don't see any reason to start now. There is a perfectly good word, "strike", that will do just fine, and in fact "collision" is used interchangeably with allision everywhere outside of legal texts without confusion. "Allision" is a needlessly pedantic emphasis. Acroterion (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that nowhere (save the infobox) does the article use "allision" as the primary means to describe the event. The lead sentence says "the container ship Dali struck one of its piers." The Background section uses allision in decidedly secondary fashion: "...at the time of the collision (in maritime terms, allision)..." The Collapse section doesn't use it at all. Bottom line: no one reading this article is left confused by "allision". Indeed, editors have taken pains to ensure it. And why? Because its inclusion serves an important purpose: to introduce the notion that the law treats events of its type differently from a two-ship collision. This is hardly just "legal jargon"; it has quite significant real-world effects: while collisions can require years to sort out blame and assign damages, allisions are generally deemed to be the ship's fault. Indeed, we can see evidence for this in the alacrity with which the Dali's insurers are settling the government's nine-figure claim—not within years as some legal observers had predicted, but within weeks—because it's an allision, not a collision. PRRfan (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser note I've blocked Szpilt as a WP:BKFIP sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)