Talk:Silver Bridge

Section

I'm removing the "Memorialization" section because the site linked does not contain "Very specific information on the 46 victims," just a list of their names. The "very specific information" only seems to be about the people who the author feels have died in connection with the alleged "Mothman" incidents in Point Pleasant. --ndc 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The aftermath section refers to 'three other' bridges of the same type, but only lists two. Is it possible the third was the Silver Bridge itself, making it only 'two other'? Ettalynn 05:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume the third bridge that was referenced would of been, I belive the old 6th Street Bridge in Huntington, WV. It was always called the sister bridge to the Silver Bridge built around the same time. The bridge was demolished sometime around 1995 as I recall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.227.48 (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This is a good article, but the article's namespace needed to be turned into a disambiguation. RK (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? The current title is terrible. "Silver Bridge (bridge)" indeed. This should be Silver Bridge and the disambiguation should be Silver Bridge (disambiguation). Someone's applied a titling rule stupidly and this article has fallen victim to Wikipedia's worst fault - pedantry. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the article namespace did not need to be turned into a disambiguation. Look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Silver_Bridge and you will find two things; one, that all but two of the links that point to "Silver Bridge" refer to the Silver Bridge in Point Pleasant WV, with the other two possibly ambiguous and referring either to the Silver Bridge or the Silver Memorial Bridge: and two, that all the links to "Silverbridge" refer to Silverbridge, County Armagh. In fact, there are only two articles named Silver Bridge on Wikipedia: Silver Bridge (bridge) and Silver Bridge (firm) with the latter being an orphan; the other pages with "Silver" and "bridge" in their title are clearly distinguishable by simply using their own full name (ie, Silver Memorial Bridge). Additionally, a check at http://stats.grok.se/ finds that Silver Bridge (bridge) is viewed many thousands of times a month, while Silver Bridge (firm) is viewed a few hundred times a month. It is abundantly clear that the term "Silver Bridge", as used on the English Wikipedia, refers to the bridge, while "Silverbridge" refers to Silverbridge, County Armagh. Per the standard at WP:PRIME Silver Bridge will redirect to Silver Bridge (bridge) and Silver Bridge (disambiguation) will be used for disambiguation, while Silverbridge will redirect to Silverbridge, County Armagh, and a hatnote will be placed on that page directing any misguided readers to the dab page. Rejectwater (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. — ξ^xplicit 01:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Silver Bridge (bridge) → Silver Bridge — The subject of this article is the primary topic for the term "Silver Bridge" as used on this wiki. Rejectwater (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Support fairly obvious. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Plagiarism

See identical paragraphs at the apparently original website http://silverbridgeaccident.webs.com/aboutthebridge.htm BryceN (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• This website claims to be "Copyright 2006" and the paragraphs in question were first posted here in 2005. Also, at first glance it is obvious to me that these paragraphs are a re-write of the information found in the source [1]. I don't think that this is at all a cut and dry example of plagiarism nor "blatant copyright violation" on our part. Rejectwater (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, check out the guestbook: the first entry, from the site author, is dated August 20, 2006. Rejectwater (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Comparing this article to the other website, the paragraphs in question are word for word identical in the article version from July 26, 2006. However, these paragraphs had evolved slightly over time within the Wikipedia article since first posted in 2005. Rejectwater (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The Copyright 2006 does not provide much indication, as authors often claim a new copyright date after making text edits. The guest book comment is a clue. Unfortunately webs.com does not give us a date for the domain creation. It is possible based on this evidence that someone paraphrased from the 2001 dated wvculture.org into Wikipedia, then the silver bridge webmaster copied the entire "Silver Bridge Innovations" section. Example paragraph "These allow the bridge to respond to various live loads by a slight tipping of the supporting towers...". I'll post on his blog and see what comes out. Somebody copied from somebody: but who? Brycen (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Interesting. Did you try his email? Rejectwater (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Honestly, I'd rather be conservative here, and just rewrite those paragraphs totally. Copyvio is not something I'd like to play around with.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I think I know who actually wrote those lines. I left a message on his talk page. Rejectwater (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
              • I have confirmed with user Leonard G. that the text in question was written by him. You can see the discussion on his talk page. I have requested that he post here as well. Also, I have undone the edit that deleted the contested information. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagarism Denied

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of copyright violation of some of the text used until recently (it has been deleted pending review) in the article Silver Bridge at Talk:Silver Bridge. As you did quite a bit of edits at the time in question I am hoping you could shed some light on the matter. Personally, I believe you are the actual author of the text; if so you can clear this up with a few words. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC):

I made no additions to Silver Bridge concerning memorialization (nor Mothman).

- Leonard G. (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The text in question dealt with the construction of the bridge in a section originally titled "Silver Bridge Innovations" with two subsections titled "Low redundancy high strength" and "Rocker towers". You can see the first time it showed up in the page history at [an old revision of the page, as edited by 69.42.6.235 (talk) at 16:13, 7 August 2005. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Those sections are my creation and wording, which (it appears) that I added via IP inadvertently. This is my own text, created without knowledge or reference to the cited source. Please note the text from which I obtained the information (and which is cited in the early article) http://www.wvculture.org/history/wvhs1504.html, that is dated in October 2001.

(HIGH STRENGTH, LOW REDUNDANCY) "... Some unique engineering techniques were featured on the Silver Bridge such as 'High Tension' eye-bar chains, a unique anchorage system, and 'Rocker" towers. The Silver Bridge was the first eye-bar suspension bridge of its type to be constructed in the United States. The bridge's eye-bars were linked together in pairs like a chain. A huge pin passed through the eye and linked each piece to the next. Each chain link consisted of a pair of 2" x 12" bars and was connected by an 11" pin. The length of each chain varied depending upon its location on the bridge.(3) ... The answer come in the type of material used for the eye-bars. The American Bridge Company developed a new heat-treated carbon steel to use on the construction of the Silver Bridge. This new steel would allow the individual members of the bridge to handle more stress. Along with the two eye-bars sharing the load, the steel could easily handle the 4 « million pound load. The newly treated chain steel eye-bars had an ultimate strength of 105,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with an elastic limit of 75,000 psi along with a maximum working stress of 50,000 psi. The eye-bars embedded into the unique anchorage were also heat treated for an ultimate strength of 75,000 psi, an elastic limit of 50,000 psi and a maximum unit stress of 30 psi.(5)"

(ROCKER TOWERS) "Another unique design technique used on the Silver Bridge was the 'Rocker' towers. The innovative towers, which had a height of 130 feet, 10 1/4 inches, allowed the bridge to move due to shifting loads and changes in the chain lengths due to temperature variations. This was done by placing a curved fitting next to a flat one at the bottom of the piers. The rocker was then fitted with dowel rods to keep the structure from shifting horizontally. With this type of connection, the piers were not fixed to the bases.(7)"

The author of the cited article should be notified that they are in violation of Wikipedia license provisions.

I have had similar problems with another article concerning Chinese Imperial roof decoration, where my text and images were copied without credit. Leonard G. (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(Revised with source quoted - Leonard G. (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for clarifying this. That is exactly what all the evidence pointed towards, I'm glad that you have confirmed it. Please, if you could, post that as well at Talk:Silver Bridge so the other editors involved in this discussion can be updated. Rejectwater (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported conclusions

Among some other changes, I've also removed this unsourced sentence from intro/overview section:

"Analysis showed that the bridge was carrying much heavier loads than it had been designed for and had been poorly maintained."

Neither of the above claims (of overloading or poor maintenance) appears to have any support in official accident investigation reports, including those from NTSB, which apparently considered, and rejected, both possibilities. (The conclusions are also at odds with the article's Wreckage analysis section, which makes clear that any maintenance issues, if any, were minor compared to the fact that detecting the bridge's flaw would have been impossible — short of taking the bridge apart.

There are similar issues with the current version of this article's Design loads section (completely unsourced), which seems to be hinting that the bridge was overloaded without actually saying so.

Comments are, of course, welcome. Marnofaldi (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My grandfather Gerald McManus was one of people who died as a result of the bridge collapsing.

Yeah my grandmother and mother lived their lives heartbroken due to the incident and too I had to live out the rest of their lives heartbroken until the day they died. My grandmother never dated liked or loved or married another man thereafter Gerald’s death. My grandmother and mother would share their life moments with me and my siblings and this is how we got to know Gerald. On the day the bridge collapsed Gerald had left his home to drive to a work area and one of which a friend slash person who shared the same work occupation as he did meaning if he hadn’t been out helping someone he would have not died on that bridge that day. Being that Gerald was a Scottish Freemason member and successful high chapter member and died from the bridge collapsing and thereafter the Mothman sighting occurred, I don’t think that it his death was a coincidence. Just saying, you wouldn’t believe the shit that happened thereafter his death 174.231.208.241 (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)