Talk:Death of Abigail Taylor

New article
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)

"Freak" accident
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)
 * I would respond that: (1) the term "freak accident" is cited and sourced, whether we agree or disagree with its use; (2) this type of accident is indeed not "very common" which, in fact, is why the Taylor story made the news; and (3) this certainly falls under the type of bizarre / odd circumstances that most people would indeed (rightly or wrongly) term a "freak accident". That's my opinion on this issue.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:40, 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)


 * The article says there are 15 other documented cases in the U.S. from 1980 to 1996. That certainly qualifies as a "freak" accident if it's only happened 15 times in a population of hundreds of millions in 16 years. That's less than one per year. There are truly "freak" ways of dying that happen more than once per year in the U.S.


 * That being said, the article doesn't need to say it's a freak accident, nor does it have to criticise this characterisation. To maintain NPOV, all that needs to be said is "some have characterised this as a freak accident" or something to that effect, without using biased language to suggest this is correct or incorrect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:22, 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)


 * Yes, but uncommonness is a major factor in determining whether something is reasonably foreseeable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:46, 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)

Need for consensus
User:Meachly, a Wikipedia editor for all of 3 days now, has issues with the following words in this article. She has suggested that we arrive at consensus.
 * I typed in: "Abigail Rose Taylor (died March 20, 2008) was a girl from Edina, Minnesota who on June 29, 2007 was involved in an accident in a wading pool at the Minneapolis Golf Club."
 * She insists that it must be: "Abigail Rose Taylor (died March 20, 2008) was a girl from Edina, Minnesota who on June 29, 2007 was involved in a fatal accident in a wading pool at the Minneapolis Golf Club."
 * I typed in: "Taylor's accident increased public awareness of pool safety and galvanized pool safety advocates."
 * She insists that it must be: "Taylor's accident increased public awareness of pool safety and inspired pool safety advocates."
 * I typed in: " ".
 * She insists that it must be: " ".

Let's try to get consensus. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * A quick Google found this article which bears directly on the first of the points you brought up. Since A.T. survived for several weeks after the accident itself, and her long-term prospects were (guardedly) optimistic, it seems unwarranted to call the accident itself "fatal", even though it eventually lead to her death.
 * As for the second point, regarding the choice between "galvanized" and "inspired", it seems that "galvanized" is a more neutral term.  :I couldn't understand your third point, which I suspect was supposed to be sarcastic. Doc  Tropics  07:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc ... THANK YOU! There is indeed one voice of reason on Wikipedia.  Thank you.  My third point, I never finished typing.  I will do so.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

As Doc says, the accident eventually led to her death. In law this means that there is no element of remoteness. Thus, if a court could be convinced of this too, then the National Safety Council will record it as a "fatal accident". If however this isn't good enough for wikipedia, then I suggest we use a phrase like "an accident which eventually lead to her death"; it's a bit cumbersome I know.

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)


 * Number 1 - yes, we can all agree that the accident eventually led to her death. But, to 99.99% of the population, when they see the phrase "she was involved in a fatal accident" ... then that 99.99% of people will think that she died right then and there on the spot -- or very shortly thereafter.  Number 2 - "galvanized" is an every day, normal, adult word.  It's not any sort of "analogy" familiar to specific communities.  Nor is it a "cliche".  It's just a normal word.  Just because you've not heard of it, does not mean that it is not a normal word or that it is a cliche.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * How is the word galvanized "clearly" a cliche? Clear to whom? Certainly not to me. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * A lot of things don't seem to be clear to you. JuJube (talk) 08:19, 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)


 * The coroner would record the cancer as the cause of death. But, the accident caused the organ transplant, which caused the cancer, which caused the death.  So, I still maintain that the accident was (indirectly) fatal, and that "fatal accident" is therefore correct and concise, and thus appropriate in the opening paragraph.  Meachly (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Yes, eventually, down the road (9 months, I believe) there was some connection.  That does not make "fatal" a good adjective to describe the accident.  That's like saying that my first puff of a cigarette at age 16 was a fatal puff ... when I die at age 80 of lung cancer.  Let's use common sense, please.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Also, this is the online dictionary definition of galvanize.
 * –verb (used with object), -nized, -niz·ing.
 * 1. to stimulate by or as if by a galvanic current.
 * 2. Medicine/Medical. to stimulate or treat (muscles or nerves) with induced direct current (distinguished from faradize).
 * 3. to startle into sudden activity; stimulate.
 * 4. to coat (metal, esp. iron or steel) with zinc.
 * So, nothing cliche or geographically dialectic. Just a normal, everyday word.  And quite appropriate in this context.   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

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

(OD)Whether pool safety advocates were galvanized or inspired, that seems to be something covered by the preceding phrase "public awareness of pool safety." Do the references mention anything about pool safety advocates, if such a thing widely existed before this better-known accident? There's no need to mention advocates, unless the pool safety lobby bears a larger role in the legislation. From the references I've seen, they don't.

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)


 * I resolved some of this with a fairly extensive rewrite of the first para. I also moved the third para. up into second place for better flow. Let me know what you think. Doc Tropics  08:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On the galvanization of galvanized galvanizers
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)
 * Thanks for this explanation. I would never have read the sentence the way you proposed, because I don't recall ever knowing that swimming pools could be galzanized. However, if one assumes a poor use (or, rather, an absence of use) of hyphens, then you are wise to change the word. It is always better to be kind to the reader. Should not "pool-safety" be hyphenated, whatever the verb? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, are "pool safety advocates" mentioned anywhere in the reference materials? It seems like "public awareness of pool safety" says it all, and we don't need PSA's to be either inspired, galvanized, energized, or anything of the sort. Redrocket (talk) 22:35, 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)

Huge improvements
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)

Unsourced/Unreliably sourced statement about parent's responsibility
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)
 * No. They just couldn't visit a private institution and leave their kid in a swimming pool while they go and play golf. Different people have different duties and standards of care. It is not the duty of care to look after young children as they require constant active supervision. That is not the job of a lifeguard. I accept maybe that statement applies only to Australian swimming pools. Especially as one of the later paragraphs suggests that the US are decades behind in safety laws. But if you are going to remove that "unreliably" sourced statement then you should also remove that entire unsourced paragraph. You can't have it both ways. Carbonrodney (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abigail's mom was at the pool. She was watching, this happened in a wading pool with 18 inches of water.  Please review the story here if you would like more clear information: https://abbeyshope.org/abbeys-story/
 * This story has been verified by police reports and witnesses to the incident. 2601:444:300:AE0:47:975C:1CAB:8AA (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You've brought up about three different points. Let's talk about them one at a time:
 * This particular paragraph, you will note, is entitled "Description of the Incident". It's about establishing the facts. So statements about who had what responsibility don't belong here anyway.
 * Although this paragraph has no inline references, all its statements are verifyable from the references given at the bottom of the article. If you feel that it needs inline refs, feel free to add them (but my opinion is that this would make the article messy, and is unwarranted since it's about undisputed facts).
 * I accept that lifeguards are not normally expected to look after young children. However we don't know what responsibilities the establishement agreed to undertake.  Since the pool was a "kiddie pool", then arguably they had invited children to use it and by implication undertook that responsibility.  However that's something for the lawyers and the courts to work out. Carmen56 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. The reason I added it was because of the sentence immediately prior to it, because its structure implies responsibility on the parents and the club staff (presumably lifeguards), without mentioning any responsibility of the club. If you want to avoid discussing responsibility there (and I agree with that) then that last sentence should be changed. I have changed it now, as not to be one of those discuss-at-length-on-the-talk-page-but-never-edit types.
 * I was looking up a statement of duty of care for American lifeguards... as here (Australia) it is a national policy. But I read here that in the US it is the duty of the club to declare what ages their lifeguards will be expected to supervise. So, my addition was inappropriate. --Carbonrodney (talk) 01:21, 21 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)


 * Then we disagree on the sentence: "the parents were in the general vicinity of the pool at the time"? I don't mean this as an attack, but that is not explicit details on who was doing what. I do think explicit details would be a good addition though, and I am prepared to write another sentence of information, so I looked through the report and a couple of the articles but couldn't find anything on the location of the parents. I did find that there were two lifeguards watching the other pool, so I will include that once we have some info on the location of the parents. --Carbonrodney (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Indeed, the name of this article originally was "Abigail Taylor". However, under Wikipedia guidelines, the child herself was not notable per se; rather, it was her death that was (is) notable.  That is why, eventually, the name of the article was changed from "Abigail Taylor" to "Death of Abigail Taylor".  In fact, the summary on the edit that changed the (then-incorrect) article title stated: "this incident is notable and apparently had policy implications, but this article is not a biography and the existing name is misleading".  So, this is rightfully an article about the child's (unfortunate) death ... rather than an article about the biography of the child.  And, hence, the article is titled accordingly.  By the way, this happens often on Wikipedia — where the article focuses on some event and not on the individual per se.  See, for example: Caylee Anthony homicide; Disappearance of Madeleine McCann; and Murder of Laci Peterson (just to name a few).  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC))