Talk:Jackie Walorski

The timely events tag
The edits adding in details from the crash that ended her life appear to be as complete as could be. So, soon the opening tag box should be removed soon. The remaining detail is: when and how will a successor be chosen.Dogru144 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * By special election: 2022 Indiana's 2nd congressional district special election. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information.Dogru144 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Car accident"
I was always taught, as a matter of accuracy and good writing, to not use the phrase "car accident" for anything that has not been formally ruled accidental. I don't see how it's ordinary and adequate here. It's improper synthesis to combine and  and get "car accident". That's a finding of fact and law that it's not Wikipedia's place to make. That doesn't mean, like, buying into some assassination conspiracy theory. But there's a lot of options between "accidental" and "intentional". That's why the term "car accident" is controversial for its assumption of non-fault. And let's look at the reliable sources: On the first page of news results on Google at this moment, I see: 2 "accident", 7 "crash", 1 "collision". Saying "car accident", absent a clear determination, is just as inappropriate as saying "intentional collision". -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and whenever I see "accident" used like this, I can’t help but cringe. However, the use of the term in this context is considered normal and acceptable by convention, and there’s not much we can do about that.  For this reason, I would give it a rest, and maybe come back to it in a few months. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly ordinary in common speech to use the term "car accident" to refer to motor vehicle accidents. I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to use the common phrase "car accident" to refer to an incident in which a car collides with another, and the Indiana driver's manual seems to generally (but non-exclusively) use the phrase "car accident" to refer to all collisions. Both are ultimately fine, but MOS:RETAIN is a thing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's lots of terms that are used colloquially but are incorrect. "Car accident" (as synonym for any motor vehicle collision) is one. We, a publication concerned with correctness, tend to not use these terms. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to refer to a government publication on the rules of the road as merely colloquial. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Accidents are often caused by a driver’s lack of attention, a driver’s failure to observe the rules of the road, or both. So they are, for the purposes of their document, defining "accident" to include what would more formally be referred to as negligent or reckless collisions. Okay. They're allowed to do that. That doesn't mean that we should do that. If there are multiple ways to refer to something, and one is at best ambiguous and at worst outright wrong, why should we use that one? If you're going to make this an ENGVAR thing, then see MOS:COMMONALITY: For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. And it's not like "car crash" is an alien phrase in Indiana. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud. The collision involved two cars driving at each other. Obviously, this was an accident. Overthinking this. This is resolved. Dogru144 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR. All we know is that two cars hit each other. Hot Fuzz teaches us all to refer to them as "traffic collisions". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a collision, certainly -- traffic, automobile, road -- but we don't know that it is accidental.Artaxerxes (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There has been new reports since your comment. The article currently says:   (Emphasis mine.)  Given that Walorski's car was the one that veered out of their lane, it should be clear that Schmucker is a victim in this.  I will concede that this doesn't guarantee it was accidental, but it should be assumed that it was given that there is no proof that anyone caused the collision intentionally.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Interest-group ratings
There are two ratings, one negative, one positive. Is there any reason why the negative one goes first? I would think that in general positive ones would go first. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for this? Kdammers (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If I have this correctly, NORML's rating was given in 2016 and Heritage Action for America's was given in 2017. That likely explains the order as it appears in the article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022
The introduction has this text:

Walorski won the seat in 2012 after Donnelly vacated it to run for the U.S. Senate

Please replace it with this:

Walorski won the seat in 2012 after Donnelly vacated it to run for the U.S. Senate

Thank you. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RS on ribbon cutting prior to collision
https://timesuniononline.com/Content/Local-News/Local-News/Article/Louis-Dreyfus-Company-Has-Grand-Opening-Event-For-New-Lecithin-Plant/2/453/142317 (notice the editor's note at the top) This might be a superfluous detail which is why I haven't added it. Mapsax (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Walorski Parkway
https://www.elkharttruth.com/hometown/officials-dedicate-walorski-parkway/article_565314c6-f0ca-56d3-ba80-c7f9435d1405.html (Apr 7 '23) Since this isn't along a notable road (an industrial park drive), I assume that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Mapsax (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)