Talk: Nashville, Tennessee

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Why did Wikipedia call it the "so-called great train wreck of Nashville"

Why would you call it the "so-called" great train wreck in Nashville, Tn on July 9,1918. 101 people died . Many were soldiers returning from WWI and over have of the victims were African Americans going to work in the Dupont plant.This was very gruesome and tragic event. The newspaper says that wagon loads of body parts were taken to the morge. One witness said that the young mother sitting next to him was decapitaited and her arm was shoved "into her baby." I don't know what Wikipedia ment by the "so-called" great train wreck, but it sounds like a terrible wreck to me. The 1998 article reads "worst train wreck in US history." I am obviously offended by your statement . You should change that before a survivor or relative of someone who was killed reads it.i understand that ignorance was probaly the reason for this offensive blunder. So you are forgiven, but you need to change the statement.

You may want to edit the reference in the Nashville, Tennessee article and write a short article about the event. -- User:Docu

It sounds like you are right and the article needs to be improved. Sometimes people go overboard when striving hard to write from a neutral point of view. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:26, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Sometimes people go overboard when striving hard to write from a neutral point of view."

I agree with this, but i'd like to get some feedback about a specific instance. A memorial built in 1918 commemorates a massacre of women and children. One year ago the two statues that make up the monument were smashed. I wrote that they had been desecrated, but are being repaired. Someone changed desecrated to "damaged".

This "neutral" language fails to convey that the damage was human-inflicted, and obviously intentional.

My question is, how "neutral" do we want to be? --User:Richard Myers (talk)

I agree that goes a bit overboard, but have to admit that "desecrated" is a very emotive word, and has (for me at least) almost religious connotations (as in "desecrating a grave"). To convey "human-inflicted, and obviously intentional" damage, I'd probably go for "vandalised"; more neutral in the sense that it conveys the facts (assuming it has the same connotations to other readers as it does for me, of course...) - unlike "damaged" - but doesn't go further than the facts - as "desecrated" arguably does. Just an opinion, of course. - IMSoP 18:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not authorised to, but somebody should put a picture of Nashville, like its skyline or something, on this page. Knoxville and Chattanooga have pictures, and every other city of Nashville's size in the US does too. Thanks!