Talk:I-35W Mississippi River bridge/Archive 3

Search and Rescue now Search and Recovery

WDIV-TV is reporting that the search for survivors is over... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard some were already doing that last night Nil Einne 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Any people who did not make it out of their cars and swim to the surface would have drowned within 15 minutes or so. So they were all dead before 6:30pm last night. T-bonham 09:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear from the news reports that the rescue divers can see people's bodies in the submerged automobiles but have not removed any from the scene yet. Why have they not pulled those cars out of the water with tow trucks or cranes? failing that, why not just built two temporary walls and drain the river where this happened? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)-

They haven't pulled them out yet because they want to leave everything in place so the engineers can figure out the cause. And it hardly matters to the victims; they are already dead.

Also, pulling them out with tow trucks would be difficult because of the height 60-70 feet from the top of the cliff to the river surface. They will probably use a big construction crane to remove the cars (and the bridge debris) eventually, but those take a while to obtain and set up.

As for "just built two temporary walls and drain the river" -- are you serious? This is the mighty Mississippi, not some little creek! There are thousands of square miles of watershed up north draining water into this river! Even during the current drought, that's thousands of gallons a minute. How do you drain something that is constantly being refilled? (To say nothing of the time needed, the cost, and the effort needed for the eventual removal of such walls.) That is not practical. T-bonham 09:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wide image

The wide image introduced in this edit has nothing to do with the bridge.

I think the image is relevant and helpful in the history section. Gwen Gale 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image would be fine for a history of Minneapolis. In this article it looks like a promotional for Minneapolis.

That image actually is in the history of Minneapolis article. I agree that it is irrelevant because it doesn't depict the bridge in question, seeing as it was taken some fifty years before the bridge was built. Natalie 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is distracting and should come out. The image and the first paragraph of "History" have little, if anything, to do with the history of the bridge. --Justanother 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. The article is protected. Both Natalie and Justanother are recent contributors. I concur about the toxic waste section of the history, unless it can be link, it sounds like original research (the linking of the site to the bridge's history).

I was already thinking along those lines, so I took the image about a while ago. The panoramic view from 1915 didn't seem all that relevant to an article about a bridge built in 1967, especially since so much had changed in that area between 1915 and 1967 (not to mention between 1967 and today). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The panoramic picture showed how the river banks were being used prior to the installation of the I-35W bridge against those very river banks. In particular, the south span of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge rests on the former Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant site shown in that photo. The Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant was removed in the 1960s and the bridge was attached to that very plant site in the 1960s. That is why I thought the picture was relevant to the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit Requests by Non-Account Holders

Can someone link the "at-grade" in the "Alternate routes" section to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-grade? I had no idea what this term was :-)

I'll try. -Jason ost 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone already did. -Jason ost 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Location incorrect

The north support is north-WEST of the U, and the south support is north-EAST of The Dome. This information should be corrected in the article.

Yes, that did not make sense when I saw it and I am just looking at a map now. The north bank of the bridge was west and a bit to the south of the university campus. Please make the changes if you are familiar with the area. --Justanother 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I had the wrong campus. NW is fine. --Justanother 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect

Now that the immediacy of the event is behind us, I'd like to try to unprotect the article. I'll unprotect it in a few minutes, barring any serious reason not to, and I'll keep an eye on it for a while to see if things are good. kmccoy (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can keep an eye on it, give it a try. I'm coming off lunch break, so I can't keep an eye on it, but go for it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure wish we had the license to use this image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiway71/127240285/ especially the highest resolution version. It shows rusting and structure realities of the bridge. It shows the underlying structure of the bridge- Bevo 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The surface oxidation near the pier is not indicative of structural issues. The substructure received a "satisfactory" rating in 2003 although other parts of the bridge were in poorer condition. See [1] and [2]. Don't want to get into a discussion of the cause of failure (not determined yet anyway) just that we would be wise to not infer by word or image that surface oxidation is important or means much of anything other than time for some new paint. --Justanother 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points! I modified my comments (see above). - Bevo 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. This just in: Minn. bridge problems uncovered in 1990

In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings. The bridge is one of 77,000 bridges in that category nationwide, 1,160 in Minnesota alone. The designation means some portions of the bridge needed to be scheduled for repair or replacement, and it was on a schedule for inspection every two years. Dorgan said the bearings could not have been repaired without jacking up the entire deck of the bridge. Because the bearings were not sliding, inspectors concluded the corrosion was not a major issue.

Grandmasterka, I moved this section to the section labeled Images below, in an attempt to organize the talk page (we have over 50 sections already). Please stop putting this section back in. -Jason ost 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It might have worked better if you'd organized the sections you moved into subsections within Images. It's kind of a mess now with completely unrelated comments piled on top of each other. It certainly isn't any easier to read through the talk page this way. --Onorem♠Dil 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop moving sections. You did in while an IP was randomly cutting stuff and the history has been seriously messed up. Jason, I"m sorry you are new, but we don't re-arrange talk pages like this. Other people were not having difficult following. pschemp | talk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. As you said, I am sort of new to this, and I didn't realize the consequences to my actions. I apolligize. -Jason ost 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cause" section

The cause section is quite premature. The only thing in that section worth keeping is the report of possible structural problems in previous inspections, and it certainly should not be listed in a section called "cause" until it is known what the cause is, or until the authorities have declared that they can't determine a cause. Until then, the whole thing is just speculation and really has no place in this article. I'd like to remove it, or at least seriously trim it and change its name to something other than "cause". What do other people feel? kmccoy (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded, so I did a big edit. Djg2006 reverted "we need to know what happened", but then reverted him/herself. I hope there's an understanding that yes, we need to know what happened, but Wikipedia is not the forum for determining what happened. When the authorities determine the cause, or determine that they can't figure it out, we should include that in the article. And, if it warrants it, criticism of that determination. But we cannot speculate as to the things that may have caused it. I feel like it's going far enough to include the information on the recent inspections in the history section. But please, discuss this here if you disagree. kmccoy (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you use the word forum, when all we did was post pertinent official documents? I disagree that there is no place for this section - you are doing a disservice to the readership and the reputation of the site. Djg2006 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add that it is presumptuous of you to remove the section a second time, before even discussing it. Djg2006 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep your tone non-hostile. There's no need for hostility here. :) I use the word "forum" in the meaning of "place for discussion". Wikipedia is not the place for discussion of what might have caused it, or anything like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I removed the section after discussing it, and each time I removed it, I continued to discuss it here, despite your lack of response, initially.

Please consult the policy regarding What Wikipedia is not for an indication as to why it's inappropriate to include speculation on the cause of this disaster.

Djg2006 and I have made our points -- does anyone else want to add their input? kmccoy (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what Djg added is not speculation, but it is based on sources. Speculation is something you think happened, which is sheer pov. What you did without discussion is not good. Also based on Wikipedia:Verifiability, you can't contested content based on a source. Chris! _{my talk} 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between the facts, like the de-icing system existing and a train moving under the bridge (error -- the train was not moving; it was just some railroad cars sitting on a spur track. T-bonham 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)), and the speculation that it may have been part of the cause of the collapse. That speculation comes from putting those cited facts into a section called "cause". You might be interested in [[3]] and Wikipedia:No original research. As your own cited Wikipedia:Verifiability states, it's important to include the other policies of Wikipedia together with verifiability. Gathering a set of information about the bridge, even if they're well-cited, and then presenting them as possible causes for the collapse is original research. The proper way to go about it is to find someone with some legitimacy, like a structural engineer, who is quoted as saying that some of these things may have been the cause of the collapse. And then include it in the article as such.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're saying I did "without discussion", since it took a bit of prodding to get anyone to respond to my comments here in the first place. kmccoy (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you make the change before you say anything, that constitute "editing without discussion". And his edits are not original research, either as he cited everything according to a source. An original research is something you introduce in the article based on your own assessments or assumption. If they are based on a source, they aren't original research. So the wikipedia policy on original research doesn't apply here. As for the WP:Not, you could definitely summarized or rewrite to make the section better suit the guideline. But removing the whole thing without determining the content is not improving it. Just to be clear, I am not saying that you are entirely wrong here, but better judgment than to delete the whole thing is the main point here. Chris! _{my talk} 22:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check your timeline -- I removed that section (I also didn't just delete it, by the way, but incorporated many of its points into other areas, and then removed some parts of it) quite some time after I initially started this section on the talk page.

I'm not sure you're understanding my problem with the section. I'm probably not being clear. It's not that I doubt any of the facts. They're all pretty basic. My problem is with presenting them as though they contributed to the collapse. The problem isn't with any individual part of the section, it's adding them all up to reach a conclusion (or to suggest a conclusion) which is what I'm concerned about. The original research is the linking of these items and the collapse. I'm sure that within a few days, the NTSB will start to release preliminary findings. Let's add them then. kmccoy (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

dlg added the information to the section with structural concerns. This is a much better place and really helps to alleviate my concerns about it being original research -- thanks! It would be nice if you also had some sources saying that these factors were concerns, though. Who was concerned about the train vibrations? Who was concerned that the deicing system might cause the bridge to collapse? Or, who has suggested that the deicing system may have caused it to collapse? Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you overreact on the issue of original research. The whole thing is not original research. One part of it is based upon official government record and governor's word. Now are you implying that they are illegitimate. Since they are not original research, you can't delete them. Maybe it doesn't belong to the cause section, but it should definitely be include in the article. Chris! _{my talk} 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Original sythesis of published information is in fact original research as well. There is likely a great amount of detail out there about the bridge. It is unlikely all of it should be included. Including some information because you think it may be related to the cause is inappropriate. If you attempt to link the information to the cause in the article without a reliable source who has done so, this is original research Nil Einne 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all the discussions, to me those about cause(s) are the most interesting. Unfortunately such discussions are outside wiki. Might someone then direct me to a forum where I can read the discussions? Thanks.

The alternate routes section is problematic

because this is an encylcopedia, not a news agency or DOT. However, I think some of the information is very relevant, such as the fact that this bridge carried a significant amount of traffic into downtown and to a big part of the U of M campus. This is already seriously affecting traffic in the Twin Cities, which already has a severe congestion problem, and will continue to affect driving patterns and traffic for possibly years. What do people think of renaming the section "Effect on traffic patterns" or something similar and rewriting it in terms of long-term effect, with a lesser emphasis on where people should be driving instead? Natalie 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we have any right or obligation to give people sources for alternate routes. They can find this information anywhere else on the internet. However, renaming the section and writing about how current traffic patterns are being affected would be nice. Perhaps once the bridge is rebuilt, then we can cite certain things, such as "The collapse forced many motorists to use Highway 280 for the duration of the cleanup and reconstruction..." Something to that effect later on down the road. MplsNarco 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

When we use jargon like pile, pylon, abutment, span, arch, etc., please be sure to wikify the term. I noticed that "riverbank" currently points to the California city, but I will probably fix that and, if needed, add a disambiguation page. That is one of the good things about hyperlinking: you can talk up to the reader and not spend so much time explaining this jargon.--SallyForth123 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the term "Section Loss" in this article but I'm coming across it in many different reports, including this 2006 inspection report. Would be great to get a definition of what this means. Mitc0185 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

These are not jargon terms, but many are technical in nature and not used in daily discussions other than in construction-related industries. "Section Loss" is a reference to a reduction in (cross-sectional) area of a structural component, usually considered in context of corrosion, wear due to cyclic loading, etc. This is significant as the ability of a structural component to carry load is related to the area of the component that load can be transferred through (along with many other factors). Routine design practice is to provide structural components oversized from what they are required to carry, to allow for section loss amongst other distresses and for excessive loads. Protection from, design for, and concern over corrosion is certainly a regular consideration for design of roadway structures in Minnesota. Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some common civil engineering terms can be found here[4]. Badsongninja 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I always understood it 'jargon' is word which are specific to a certain group or trade of people, ie a technical term, which is not familiar to those outside it, being used where those who do not understand it will come across it, such as Wikipedia. Thus, as I understand it, the terms under discussion are jargon by your definition. the term 'cyclic loading' sounds like piles of bicycles to the rest of the world!

IceDragon64 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Anthony Bridge

The I-35W bridge was never called St. Anthony Bridge. The only pre-collapse information about St. Anthony Bridge states "The Model Railroad Club built ... a stone arch bridge that replicates the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis." (December 4, 1987) and "Minneapolis Sky Line" is a nearly all blue painting by Enid Knowles, with the arching St. Anthony Bridge the unifying element. (February 11, 2001). Google images show no such bridge. The I-35W does not have such arches or stones. The I-35W is a few bridges away from St. Anthony Falls. Until there is consensus to add St. Anthony Bridge" to the article, please work to keep this incorrect information out of the article. Thank You. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, St Anthony Bridge either refers to either the Third Avenue Bridge or Stone Arch Bridge. BeeArkKey 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some news media claim it was originally known as the St. Anthony Bridge, although they could be wrong. The Third Avenue Bridge was origally known as the St. Anthony Falls Bridge. Franklin Avenue Bridge. Further upstream, the Camden Bridge is sometimes informally called the St. Anthony Parkway Bridge. In any case, it isn't always necessary to use the official name; the Franklin Avenue Bridge further downstream has an official name that I've never heard anybody use before. Eco84 | Talk 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Video of bridge collapse

Apparently, the video of the bridge collapsing was taken by a security camera at the lock and dam control house. Could anyone confirm whether or not the camera belonged to the Army Corps of Engineers? If it did, then the video is in the public domain and we can include it freely on the web page -- once we can find a source for it that isn't watermarked with CNN or AP. kmccoy (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This AP article: CNN Gets Beat on Video of Collapse clearly attributes the video to the Corps, with details. See also this link. And this. I saw an uncropped version on YouTube and the image had "LWR4" on it. Maybe that is the camera ID.--SallyForth123 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Youtube video you are looking for? Chris! _{my talk} 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be one of them. There is also this, which has the ID alphanumerics.--SallyForth123 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The one you found might be the actual footage from the Corps. Chris! _{my talk} 23:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While, the one I point to already had marks from http://news.sky.com/ and http://www.liveleak.com/ added to it, but at least it did not yet have the CNN cropping.--SallyForth123 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Victim Names are filtering in...

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_213191448.html

"Those confirmed killed in the collapse are Julia Blackhawk, 32, of Savage, Minn.; Patrick Holmes, 36, of Mounds View, Minn.; Artemio Trinidad-Mena, 29, of Minneapolis; and Sherry Engebretsen, 60, of Shoreview, Minn."

I dynamic linked the names to see how long it takes for someone to create Wikipedia articles on them. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the appropriate way to handle the victims is not by separate articles, but in this one, unless they otherwise meet the criteria for notability. Kablammo 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. Cover the event first. For monitoring purposes, you may want to redirect victims' names here in the meantime. Canuckle 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I put the 4 victims names on the page and it was removed. I believe it is appropriate to identify the confirmed fatalities. Is there an argument about this? Dw31415. Nope it was just moved. They are still there. Dw31415 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the victims' names, I'd like a few more responsible editors to watchlist them, please. Thanks. Grandmasterka 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Smart move, Grandmasterka. I wish I had thought of that and its obvious where your name comes from. As each name victim name comes up, please feel free to redirect it to I-35W Mississippi River bridge. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think including the names is appropriate at this point. Even our 9/11 article doesn't include the names of all the victims. I think links to this are fine but they shouldn't be listed as part of the article. None of these people are notable, and the tragedy is quite fresh. It's too easy for names to turn into a memorial too. pschemp | talk 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, I reverted your edit as there are only 4 confirmed deaths at the moment, I don't think the article is at risk. Users simply need to be vigilant for such additions. Zidel333 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the names should be in teh article, or at least linked to a sepeate list that details the confirmed dead ala Virginia Tech Massacre. Zidel333 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include them when the smoke clears...but right now it is too early. pschemp | talk 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Too early? How so? If there are sources, it should be added. Zidel333 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours out of respect and to make sure the sources have it right should be done. Encyclopedias are written in hindsight, they are not news articles. pschemp | talk 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The attitude of "if there's a source, it should be in the article" is covered in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't really think that the names should be in the article, either, though I won't edit them out myself. kmccoy (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that adding the list of the recenlty decesaed is "Indiscriminate information"; it is perfectly valid and should be in the article. The reverting here is becoming ridiculous. Zidel333 14:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will. Tomj 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Names of people killed are directly relevant and are not "indiscriminate". They should be here until the length of the list becomes a problem and then it can be forked off. Canuckle 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm combining all of the image related sections in this talk page to one section. It's just too cluttered right now. -71.210.170.121 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The wide image introduced in this edit has nothing to do with the bridge.

I think the image is relevant and helpful in the history section. Gwen Gale 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image would be fine for a history of Minneapolis. In this article it looks like a promotional for Minneapolis.

That image actually is in the history of Minneapolis article. I agree that it is irrelevant because it doesn't depict the bridge in question, seeing as it was taken some fifty years before the bridge was built. Natalie 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is distracting and should come out. The image and the first paragraph of "History" have little, if anything, to do with the history of the bridge. --Justanother 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. The article is protected. Both Natalie and Justanother are recent contributors. I concur about the toxic waste section of the history, unless it can be link, it sounds like original research (the linking of the site to the bridge's history).

I was already thinking along those lines, so I took the image about a while ago. The panoramic view from 1915 didn't seem all that relevant to an article about a bridge built in 1967, especially since so much had changed in that area between 1915 and 1967 (not to mention between 1967 and today). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The panoramic picture showed how the river banks were being used prior to the installation of the I-35W bridge against those very river banks. In particular, the south span of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge rests on the former Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant site shown in that photo. The Minneapolis Gas Works manufactured-gas plant was removed in the 1960s and the bridge was attached to that very plant site in the 1960s. That is why I thought the picture was relevant to the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiway71/127240285/ especially the highest resolution version. It shows rusting and structure realities of the bridge. It shows the underlying structure of the bridge- Bevo 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The surface oxidation near the pier is not indicative of structural issues. The substructure received a "satisfactory" rating in 2003 although other parts of the bridge were in poorer condition. See [5] and [6]. Don't want to get into a discussion of the cause of failure (not determined yet anyway) just that we would be wise to not infer by word or image that surface oxidation is important or means much of anything other than time for some new paint. --Justanother 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points! I modified my comments (see above). - Bevo 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. This just in: Minn. bridge problems uncovered in 1990

In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings. The bridge is one of 77,000 bridges in that category nationwide, 1,160 in Minnesota alone. The designation means some portions of the bridge needed to be scheduled for repair or replacement, and it was on a schedule for inspection every two years. Dorgan said the bearings could not have been repaired without jacking up the entire deck of the bridge. Because the bearings were not sliding, inspectors concluded the corrosion was not a major issue.

Image of bridge being built. http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1339588-a1338421-t3.html

Not sure, but if you think it's fair use...

There should be a free alternative somewhere, seeing how the government constructed it. Pepsidrinka 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why Image:I-35W bridge collapse TLR1.jpg has been relegated to the gallery while a less dramatic photo remains in the article? I think this image should have a prominent position. TerriersFan 22:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the top image to an inappropriate image, considering the death and injury caused by this catastrophe.

The location map shows the bridge as spanning only the river itself. That is less than a quarter of its actual length, and the failure extended far beyond the main span. A new image is needed. Kablammo 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image was SVG, easy to fix. Might still need some work. -Ravedave 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RD-- nice job (as always). Do you think it should be extended over SE 2d St.? Kablammo 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, nice catch (as always). Fixed now. -Ravedave 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're fast. Kablammo 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The map shows the street connected to the 10th Ave Bridge as being Cedar Avenue. It should be 19th Avenue South, I believe, as shown here:Image:Map excerpt bridges.jpg.--Appraiser 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

changed label to "Cedar Ave. Bridge" (per google) and moved to correct spot -Ravedave 04:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)