Talk:Humboldt Broncos bus crash

Victims

Just wondering if we're doing a victims section. As of 6pm MST, the RCMP have released all of the victims names and was wondering if we wanted a section for them. Even just stating a general overview of them. Source 1, source 2, source 3. --QueerFilmNerd (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We could perhaps have a table similar to the one listing the victims in Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash, showing players and their respective positions. Acebulf (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking something like that or something similar to the 2008 Bathurst Boys in Red accident page. Or, we could just do an overview, noting how many were players, and noting the ones that were not (like the bus driver, the coach, etc.)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think something like the Boys in red with a bit more information would fit the bill. I'll start working on it and try to see how much we can condense the victims section to have the most information without taking too much screen space, as I don't think it should be bigger than the rest of the article, but it's still important information that we have access to. If anyone thinks of anything let me know, i'll be building it at Humboldt Broncos bus crash/victims subpage. Acebulf (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done the list, but it's missing information. I figure it'll come out in the next couple days. Perhaps we could have a bit of a section to talk about the injuries as well. What do you think? Acebulf (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Acebulf I have added a CBC source to it identifying the victims as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Thank you very much. It's a bit odd, but the two articles seem to contradict eachother on some of the ages for the coach. I'll double-check if there are any other contradictions. Acebulf (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Acebulf: That is odd. CTV appears to agree with the CBC's numbers, so I would probably go with those. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I've looked on the internet for a primary source from his NCAA-playing days, but haven't been able to find anything. I'll put it as 42, and I'll be sure to check for the obituary that will likely have the date on it. Acebulf (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

How about a list of survivors? Wondering if we should add a list of the injured players as well? Rkehler3 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to be dead to be a victim. Jwolfe (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

True. My question was posted before the section name was changed from Fatalities. I am looking for a consensus from others who have been editing this article if we want to include this information in the article before someone goes ahead and does it on their own.Rkehler3 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at the 2008 Bathurst Boys in Red accident and they only listed the deaths. I don't have a problem listing all the victims though but I am just pointing out what a similar article did. Personally I don't think we need to name all the survivors but I don't have a strong preference. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I realize this is not going to be a popular comment, but lists of non-notable victims of WP:EVENTS are generally frowned on. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VL. And I am very strongly opposed to adding any list of non-notable survivors. However it is not unusual to add a link to a list of those lost in the External Links section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  You were a bit strong in removing the content without discussion going against consensus established above citing an essay that was viewed less than 60 times in the last 3 months and what I consider to be a misapplication of WP:NOT, which is intended to prevent memorial articles on the individual deceased people, far from what we are discussing here. Considering you stated that you did not think it was a popular comment, I'm kind of perplexed as to why you thought it was appropriate to still immediately remove the section before any discussion could take place. With all that being said, I still think including the list of victims is relevant, especially since individually they were heavily discussed in national media. Acebulf (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In my experience over the years, the community has almost always come down against victim lists for non-notable persons in WP:EVENT articles. They are un-encyclopedic and whatever lipstick we might try to put on them, they are essentially memorials. An external link to a list of the victims or a memorial website is adequate. If there is disagreement we can post an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is to go against adding a list of non-notable victims should Ryan Straschnitzki even be mentioned? I know he says he wants to go to the Olympics but that seems like a dream right now, he isn't even out of the hospital. I get the victims that were misdentified were important but is Ryan? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is often incorrectly cited. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a memorial but this incident is way beyond a memorial but a reasonably major historic event. Years later, if a respected journalist is asked "what were the major events in Canada in 2018?", this crash will be one of them, no question.

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is often incorrectly cited as a prohibition of a list of killed. However, Wikipedia does commonly not have a list of the dead, particularly in airplane crashes. Airplane crashes typically have many dead. There are exceptions. Since the number of dead is relatively small in this crash, I do not object to listing them. One explanation is that newspaper articles list them but those same newspapers do not list the 70 dead when a plane crashes. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Straschnitzki has now been mentioned in two different sets of news articles, one as a witness to the crash, and the second as his plans for his future. The first is clearly notable. I would say the second is also significant, because it is a glimpse of how the crash has affected those who survived, how one of them is reacting to the major change in his life. That's just as much a part of the "Aftermath" as talking about continuing the play-offs, the vigils and the crowdfunding.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

See also

There is evidently disagreement over whether to mention the Swift Current Broncos bus crash in the "See also" section. Myself and Kablammo believe linking it in the Aftermath section is fine, and since it's been there more often than not, we must abide by WP:SEEALSO which, at the very least, strongly discourages redundant linking in See Also sections: If it's already linked somewhere else in the article, please do not link to it down there.

However, not a few editors disagree, and in particular I notice that Vanguard10 modified the hidden edit notice I left there specifically telling users to not link to it in the Aftermath section and instead to leave it listed in "See also". I would argue there is no reason to do it this way. But since I'm all but WP:EDITWARring over this, I've had enough and have come here to seek a resolution. It seems like a minor point, but I thought the same thing when I first made the change. I didn't realize several people would come by and constantly undo it, so clearly there's a discussion to be had here. Thoughts, anyone? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, additional thoughts. I agree that "See Also" should be used sparingly. At one time, there was no link in the body of the article but a See Also link. The Swift Creek Broncos bus crash is so significant that a separate See Also link is useful, far more than any link in the body of the article. The Swift Creek Broncos bus crash doesn't have to be linked in the body of the article, like this. What do others think? Agree? Vanguard10 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The in-body link has also been rewritten so it more clearly points to the other article. It should stand out to a greater degree now. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body . . . MOS:NOTSEEALSO. The Swift Current accident does not really shed any light on this one; it is the reaction of the survivors of that prior accident, now described in the text, that makes it relevant. We don't need a list of other tragedies involving sports teams. Kablammo (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree that it's just the reaction of the survivors of the Swift Current crash that makes it relevant. The reaction here in Saskatchewan of many people was "Another crash! Just like the Broncos in Swift Current." The news coverage is linking the two events, with flashback stories to the Swift Current crash, interviews with the townspeople from Swift Current about how it affected the town, how it is still part of the hockey community there, the memorials that have been put up. There's also been articles about the safety of buses, the long hours the teams spend on buses, how they are the safe haven for the team, and that's why crashes of buses hit particularly hard in hockey culture. I think as well that the previous crash is one of the reasons why the immediate reaction of Canadian editors on wiki was that this crash was a notable event. That said, I don't have a particularly strong reaction either way to whether it should be the "See also" section, since it is linked in the body of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo: Bingo. That's exactly the rule I'm referring to. Last I checked, the link in the Aftermath section was rewritten to stand out more, so the concern Vanguard presented about it being visible (at least that is what I personally am getting out of Vanguard's post) has hopefully been addressed.

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I think you've just made a good argument for another dimension of coverage to this article - the cultural aspect of it. To do it justice, though, we still should avoid the "See also" section; putting it there implies it's just another blip on the reader's radar in this same (depressing) topic area, but if the two incidents are linked culturally and emotionally, it should probably be covered here, and discussed in detail... something a "See also" section can't do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that someone took it out so it has not "hopefully been addressed." Vanguard10 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Key words: "Last time I checked". ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like more input from the ones who prefer to have it in the "See also" section, so I'm pinging Joseph A. Spadaro and Yoho2001. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone took it out. Seems to be contrary to the moderate (not unanimous) consensus to have it in there. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've left that editor a PM asking for input on this page. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Having an entry in See Also provides a handy reference, highlighting a related topic, even if it's mentioned in the body of the article above. I'll sometimes go to See Also directly, when I'm looking for a tangential article that I wouldn't expect to be in the text of the page. It's easier to find, without having to read through paragraphs or use a search function. Yoho2001 (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO states "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Then again, it also states posting links is a matter of editorial discretion and common sense, so read in that light the otherwise firm language loses much of its force. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a major flaw in SeeAlso which I am discussing on the WP:SEEALSO page. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Major_flaw_in_WP:NOTSEEALSO This flaw results in articles that are remotely related qualify for SeeAlso but the most important one doesn't, leading to sometimes hostile WP discussions. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes called for

Not sure if it should be added as it may just be rhetoric but it seems appropriate to at least mention in passing that "rural politicians" want changes made to the intersection, citing this accident and the 1997 one. (As it's now developing repeated if minor mentions, 1997 Armley car crash might work as a redirect since it's also part of the reason for responses to this (even) bigger crash.) See here. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Editing to prevent archiving without anybody even attempting to respond. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth a passing mention. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Request that someone look into editing when the number of fatalities increased to 16. Initially, it was 14. Was the physical therapist #15 or #16?

She was #16.

Request that someone look into what happened to the championship. Permanently suspended for the year? Vanguard10 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Answer, they continued and the Humboldt Broncos were deemed losers against Nipawin. They were behind 3-1 before the crash. See https://globalnews.ca/news/4138883/saskatchewan-junior-hockey-league-sjhl-season-playoffs-humboldt-broncos-bus-crash/

Representatives from each SJHL hockey team, which forms the league’s Board of Governors, had a conference call to decide on whether the league finals would move forward or cease for the end of the season.

“We had a gruelling decision to make with respect on how we can pay tribute and honour the Humboldt Broncos,” SJHL President Bill Chow said in a press release.

The schedule for the SJHL final between the Estevan Bruins and the Nipawin Hawks is as follows:

   Game 1 – April 14 @ 7:30 p.m. CT in Nipawin;
   Game 2 – April 15 @ 7:30 p.m. in Nipawin;
   Game 3 – April 17 @ 7:30 p.m. in Estevan;
   Game 4 – April 18 @ 7:30 p.m. in Estevan;
   Game 5 – April 20 @ 7:30 p.m. in Nipawin;
   Game 6 – April 22 @ 7:30 p.m. in Estevan; and
   Game 7 – April 24 @ 7:30 p.m. in Nipawin.

Vanguard10 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Speculation in lead about cause of accident

@WikiFan11427: WikiFan11427 and I have a polite disagreement about the opening of the lead paragraph. I don't think we should have anything there about who is at fault, as the RCMP investigation is still ongoing and NPOV - we shouldn't try to determine liability in the article. Would welcome comments from others. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Several things:

1) Great feedback! Thanks! My original edit wasn't precise enough. Hopefully, the revised wording is better.

2) I agree that speculation should be avoided.

3) My edit doesn't comment on who is at fault for the accident. (The accident could have been caused by brake failure, failure of driver to stop, etc.)

4) It is not speculative to state that the semi-truck, not the hockey bus, was improperly in the intersection as the stop sign required the semi-truck to yield to the hockey bus. The purpose of my edit was to make this point. I think this change improves the article. The CBC reference notes the semi-truck drove through a "flashing stop sign".

5) I would speculate that the semi-truck did not stop at the intersection based on the accident photos. The debris is in the direction the semi-truck was travelling suggesting the truck was travelling at a high rate of speed at the time of the accident. If the truck had stopped at the stop sign, then it would have been moving very slowly when it was struck and the debris field would align with the direction the bus was travelling. As this is merely my analysis, it has not been included in the article. See accident photo: https://i0.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/611/155/Sask-Crash-Aerials20180407T1545.00_00_48_20.Still001.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. WikiFan11427 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My point of disagreement is that "failed to yield" is not a factual statement; it is a legal statement. For example, if a vehicle enters an intersection because of a sudden and uncontrollable brake failure, that may not be failure to yield; it may be failure to maintain the vehicle in roadworthy condition, but it's not failure to yield. If it is plain and obvious that the truck failed to yield, why haven't there been charges laid? The Mounties have said they will not comment on the details of the investigation at this stage. I don't think Wikipedia should be making an assumption of liability on the part of the truck driver. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:

More comments:

1) Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

2) I think the word "yield" is appropriate but I'm open to suggestions. Stating that the semi truck did not yield doesn't suggest the driver of the semi was at fault as, like you said, there could have been mechanical problems. By noting the failure to yield the article merely states that the semi was required to yield to the hockey bus but didn't. The focus of the cause of the accident should be on the semi truck and not the hockey bus.

According to Wikipedia "A stop sign is a traffic sign to notify drivers that they must come to a complete stop and make sure no other cars are coming before proceeding." Clearly, for unknown reasons, the semi truck proceeded through the intersection even though the hockey bus was coming. According to the Yield sign article, "A driver who stops or slows down to let another vehicle through has yielded the right of way to that vehicle."

3) Regarding your comment/question regarding why no charges have been laid, I haven't heard anything. It's possible that criminal charges are pending. Regardless, it's prudent for the authorities to wait for the investigation to be completed.

WikiFan11427 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. If it's prudent for the police to investigate thoroughly before making any statements, if any, about a failure to yield, then it's prudent for wikipedia to wait for them to conclude their investigation. The statement isn't about what the signs mean; it's attributing liability. Wikipedia should be cautious about attributing liability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

To put it another way, WikiFan11427, I've read the article you've added as a citation. Nothing in there says the semi "failed to yield". And, the witness, Kelsey Fiddler, is quoted: "She would not comment on what may have caused the crash, due to the ongoing investigation." So let's just reduce it to WP:CITENEED - I think you're inferring that the driver failed to yield, based on the article, but isn't that WP:Original? The article doesn't say that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Numerous additional references added to resolve this issue. WSDavitt (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Site marker missing from map preview

When you click on the map showing the location of the crash, it opens a larger map with no location marker on it.Landroo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)