Talk:Sago Mine disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Notice: This article and its talk page were subject to recent cut-and-paste moves. Do not move a page from one title to another by cutting and pasting, as this fails to preserve the edit history of the page. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:11, Jan. 4, 2006

Contents

[edit] Discussion Clean-Up?

Should we clean up this discussion page? It's incredibly long and seems to, for the most part, contain information which is no longer useful. Tyrel Haveman 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moves

This page was probably created improperly at some point judging from the page history, but given the ridiculously high number of times it has been moved around, I can't figure out where the original history is. When I followed the link on the main page, it was originally a double redirect ultimately leading to a red link. If an admin can figure out what happened from the "what links here", that'd be great. Jibbajabba 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever moved it screwed up and neglected to 1) include the discussion (there's a checkbox) and 1) still didn't get the title right. Can we all agree that "Sago Mine disaster" is both accurate now that 12 have died and consistent with how other such articles are titled on Wikipedia as well as how the Wikipedia category is titled? Crunch 16:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Since my original title was "Sago Mine Disaster," which I always wanted to keep, I will move back to that right now and fix all the redirects. Daniel Case 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That name sounds good to me, but as the disaster links had been edited and could not be written over, I was only trying to get the link on the main page to point to one location. And as for the talk, that's because someone copied and pasted the article content somewhere along the line, but like the report of 12 surviving miners, no one knows who did it or when. Jibbajabba 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. See if you can keep the discussion. It's somewhat useful, in parts.

[edit] Incident? Not quite.

http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT8.HTM Since this has indeed "claim[ed] more than five lives", incident is indeed technically wrong.

How many moves are we up to now? -- Dandelions 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I think "Daniel Case", above, is working on reverting things to Sago Mine Disaster. Crunch 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on the info in the link, I agree that "Disaster" is the correct term. Does anyone else have a valid source that says another term would be better? Joe McCullough | (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spell Tragedy Correctly?

Whoever renamed this page from Sago Mine Accident to Sago Mine Tradgedy [sic], you want to at least spell Tragedy correctly? Crunch 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I posted the same comment at the same time you did. :) Williamnilly 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
While people are futzing around with the title, maybe we could settle on "Sago Mine Disaster" which seems consistent with similar articles on Wikipedia. Crunch 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This should be fixed soon, as the article is currently on the main page and redirects to a redirect page, which redirects to the incorrectly spelled "Tradgedy" page. I would move it to the correctly named page, but my account is too new and I am unable. Peter Gawtry 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--Silverhand 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)--Silverhand 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)==Diagram== It should be a simple job to recreate this image for this article. violet/riga (t) 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Disaster"

This word seems POV (how is this a disaster but not, say, September 11 or last year's tsunami), and I think it should be changed to "accident". I realize that all other articles on mine accidents end in "disaster", and I've suggested changing them at WP:RM, but this article is on the front page and so I think it needs expedited action. Also note that mining accident is at "accident". ~~ N (t/c) 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree that most of the articles should be moved, including this one. Youngamerican 17:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • On second thought, there appears to be some sort of official differentiation between mine "accidents" and "disasters," but I have not yet found the criteria. I'm googling away, though. But as of right now, the move still seems appropriate. Youngamerican 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC
      • Opinion witheld pending outcome of event (see below). Youngamerican 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think "disaster" is so POV that this move needs rushing through. In fact...it's not POV at all, is it? Who's pushing an alternative view (i.e. that an explosion endangering 13 lives is alright, really)? Disaster is a perfectly good description as far as I'm concerned. The same argument applies for all the other articles, and note that in many cases "disaster" is the commonly used name. sjorford (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I chose the name last night in some haste. When I looked under the Mining category, there was a subcat for disasters but not accidents. What's the difference? I noticed Quecreek (the 2001 PA mining accident where all the trapped miners got out alive) isn't there. Does a mining disaster entail loss of life? Even if all of these guys get out alive, this is still going to be disastrous for the mine owner, who will likely lose quite a few days of work and have to spend a lot of money on rebuilding the mines, even assuming they aren't fined and sued six ways from Sunday. Daniel Case 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think that 'disaster' is nature-caused (such as rain flooding), while 'accident' is man-caused (such as an explosion, like here), so 'accident' is more appropriate here. Also, shouldn't it have "2006" as a prefix? Shen 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The term "disaster" is commonly used in the U.S. to describe any mining accident that claims five or more lives. See, http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT8.HTM.
    • Thank you, that was the link I was looking for (see comment above). Youngamerican 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Moved. Thanks for finding that. ~~ N (t/c) 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So if four more bodies are found, can we move it back to "disaster"? Daniel Case 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • God forbid, yes. Youngamerican 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, there are thirteen bodies now, so this seems to be a disaster. Benami 11:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I realize its been moved several times, but by the definition of a the word, a disaster must cause *widespread* destruction, even if the government uses that term. Also, I think disaster has the connotation that it wasn't caused by man, i.e. a "natural disaster". An accident, on the other hand is given as an unexpected or undesired event and an unforeseeable act. You may notice we seem to use it for things man causes, such as a car accident. It was a mining shaft, after all.
  • In case the move protection gets turned off, I agree with others here, that "disaster" is better than the other choices (incident, accident, tragedy). On the "2006" issue, I agree with Crunch below. The philosophy at the hurricane pages is to not include the year in the title until there is more than one notable hurricane of the same name. In other words, there's no need to include 2006 in the title, because there's currently no other Sago mine disaster from which to differentiate. In the list of disasters, it looks like the only pages that include the year are those that unfortunately occur more frequently and don’t have identifiable names (earthquakes, floods, tornados, bombings, fires), with the only exceptions being the 1887 and 2005 mining disasters in Canada and China, respectively. --Spiffy sperry 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worst Since 2003?

"It may be the state's worst mining disaster since three workers were killed in 2003 while drilling an air shaft near Cameron."

Maybe I'm missing something, but since there are 13 miners involved here, wouldn't it potentially be worse than the 2003 incident, meaning you'd have to go back to some earlier incident? Siradia 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "is". This is false if there have been deadly mine accidents in the intervening time, but I think that's more likely to be false than true. Of course, we'll have to find an earlier event if more than 3 people die (Gods forbid). ~~ N (t/c) 22:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no knowledge of previous mine accidents and it's not clear whether this will be worse or not so I'll refrase to demonstrate this ambiguity Vicarious 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyvios

Both images appear to be copyvios; they are AP photos taken from the Fox News web site (images #5 and #9 in the photo essay at that link). Both have been duly reported. Aaron 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

In line with naming conventions this page should be moved to Sago Mine accident or more specifically 2006 Sago Mine accident.--nixie 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask about the accident caps but I don't see the year as mattering too much. gren グレン 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] only 1 alive

01:01, January 4, 2006 Desk Jockey (rv: as of 237 EST, 12 are alive and 1 is dead; previous two edits are incorrect) ???? I'm watching CNN TV and they've interviewed 3 people who heard directly from the CEO of the mining company that only one lived. - Tyrel

Sorry, the webpages hadn't updated yet. I was wrong. Desk Jockey 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] latest press conf (3:10am EST)

I tried to type this live when watching CNN, press conf from Ben Hatfield, President of Intl Coal Group: "... mine accident. Around 11:45pm on Tuesday evening, rescue teams succeeded in... the 12 remaining minors.... initial reports indicated multiple survivors... miscommunication... only survivor... Randal McCloy .. Our hearts go out to the families of .... This is certainly not the outcome we had hoped for and prayed for." When asked about the initial numbers, "There was no such word from the company itself.... that information spread like wildfire, but it was bad information."

"I think we can confirm with certainty that the miners survived for some time."

CO levels was "in the 300 to 400 range when our rescue teams reached the location".

With regards to the "I have no idea who made that announcement, but it was not an announcement that Intl Goal Group had authorized."

"Their injuries seem to be related to the carbon monoxide poisoning."

They were all (12) in one place.

Other self notes: A surgion at the hospital had mentioned in an earlier phone interview with CNN that Mr. McCloy did NOT have elevated carbon monoxide levels. This is very interesting, since they were all in the same place.. how did only 11 of them suffer from carbon monoxide? -- Tyrel

AP and Reuters did NOT directly report that 12 were alive, they attributed that info to the families. 140.247.243.128 08:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. They were attributing the info to families, but they were more or less presenting it as fact. 140.247.237.54 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this info in as fast as possible. I hope somebody is getting these press conferences. Please post quotes if you have them. Bwilder1998 10:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we have most of the major information form the 3am press conference. Hatfield said to watch for another around 10am Wednesday, but he wouldn't give a firm time. Bwilder1998 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyrel- while it is interesting that he did not have elevated levels, i believe that McCoy was closer than the other miners, while they were more or less "together", they were not located in exactly the same spot. Mac Domhnaill 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Times

I think a lot of these times are not quite accurate, especially the times when the various reports were coming in.Bwilder1998 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

times are being spoken by hatfield on CNN now appzter 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News media effects / news media causes?

Some one may want to post the front covers of this morning's USA Today, New York Post and New York Daily News. All three covers have giant "They're alive!"-style headlines. I'd post them myself, but due to an earlier angry response from someone regarding me tagging earlier images on the page as copyvios, I think there's a risk of an edit war starting if I'm the one that uploads and posts the images. Also, from what little I've seen of this thus far (I've only been awake about twenty minutes as I type this), I have to say the live news coverage has a major league CYA aspect to it. Is anyone else getting the feeling that it's someone in the news media that's at least partially responsible (and perhaps largely responsible) for this "information" spreading like wildfile amongst the miners' families in the the rescue camp? If so, I think this angle deserves its own section. But I'd like some consenus before I go down that path. --Aaron 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this for 5 hours, and I have to agree. The initial reports seemed to come almost exclusively from family members and those around them. The TV reports mentioned that there was not yet official confirmation, but the overwhelming implication was that the reports had been confirmed. Bwilder1998 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Moments ago on Fox, Mike Emmanuel (who is at the site) was just talking about how his cell phone and Blackberry are (I'm parphrashing here) "useless here and just should be smashed ... if you want to make a living in West Virginia, you have to [be a coal miner]" ... just a disgusting elitist attitude. (Hey Mike, there's no cell coverage because you're in the middle of a coal mine, not because you've traveled west of Newark.) I also saw some tape where one of the first questions yelled to the families by a reporter was "Do you blame the governor?" And the amount of repetitive replays of the same few seconds of tape of family members blaming anybody except the news media is rapidly increasing as the newsroom day shifts start to arrive at work this morning. I'm rapidly becoming convinced that the news media is far more responsible for this than they're letting on. --Aaron 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Hemmer on Fox just admitted live on the air that he felt some responsibility and "is ashamed" at how the news media has handled this (though he was quite willing to share the blame with the coal company, governor and others), and that a number of familiy members were hurling verbal attacks at the news media as well (though we haven't seen any of that tape). I think we have enough evidence to go forward. How do you cite TV news reports that you can't link to?; this is the first current event I've dealt with on Wikipedia. --Aaron 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the content under "Conduct of the news media" is relevant to the heading. I think we need to address the media's responsibility, but right now there is a lot of other info lumped in there. Bwilder1998 10:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I added a paragraph about Bill Hemmer's on-air comments to make it more relevant, and changed the title to better note that it's a mix of news media conduct and misinformation spreading amongst others. But it needs to be separated into two sections I think. --Aaron 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but what you did was a good start. Thanks... Bwilder1998 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think we should tread lightly on this topic for a few hours to see where this goes. For a current event article, I hate to see it skewed too heavily toward blaming the media. Since we are getting most of our information from them, it is easy for us to assign unbalanced blame. I'm sure blame is due, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Thoughts? Bwilder1998 11:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I have to get ready to start my day anyway, so I won't be able to make any more edits to the article for a number of hours. Let's see how it shakes out. --Aaron 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My view in this matter is that the competition between news-outlets for popular (rating/sales improving news) is sufficiently high that vertification of sources has essentially gone out the window.

There was an initial possibly blameless failure of communication which led to the initial meme that twelve were alive; this somehow leaked out and then was taken up by all the major news-outlets who fed off each other and I suspect embellished the news to make it more news-worthy (and less blatantly a copy from another site), which led to each news-outlet convincing the others that they'd independently obtained the news (since their stories appeared to "materially" differ). This combined with their fundamental desire to publish the news (because it will improve ratings/sales) which of course directly attacks proper journalistic practises, such as verification of sources. In most cases this doesn't matter - indeed, in most cases, I suspect almost all viewers never even know or notice errors in news (there was a recent example where I think USA Today ran an article where they said that since only one Medal of Honour has been awarded in the current Iraq conflict, were US soliders now less brave? in fact, there have been at least five awards and the article's premise was flatly wrong - but who reading that article knew that? and how many who read and assumed it was true later found out the article was factually incorrect?) - but in this case, it mattered a very great deal indeed.

With such practises (lack of vertification, fundamental bias and wish to publish popular news, embellishing news) is is inevitable that today's story, or one very like it, would sooner or later occur. Toby Douglass 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I respect Hemmer's comments (and agree to an extent), I'm not sure if they should be left in. From a writing standpoint, it seems to me that it just comes out of nowhere.

Maybe it (and the whole topic) should be moved to separate paragraph or subsection on the media. Hypothetically speaking, if the cameras and reporters weren't there, this still could have happened. Amnewsboy 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica McClure

I'm confused. How is the McClure incident similar to the Sago Mine Accident? I'm not quite following how this rated a "See Also" tag. --Silverhand 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I also don't see the connection, other than that it was someone trapped underground? Was she in West Virginia? 71.195.181.150 15:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection

Would an admin please lock this page from page moves for the time being to prevent further confusion? Thanks. Jibbajabba 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Only once a decent title is chosen. At present, it's capitalization is wrong and it rules on this being a disaster. -Splashtalk 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what it should be called, but while we try to make a decision, the main page link should be frozen to point to one place so inexperienced users don't take it upon themselves. Jibbajabba 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as fairly obvious to call it 2005 Sago Mine incident, in the same vein as 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire. And I must disagree with Freakofnurture's note at the top about having to go to RfM. For a page as busy as this, it can be decided here. -Splashtalk 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that 12 fatalaties are confirmed by ICG, this meets the requirements for a 'disaster' under MSHA guidelines. DolphinCompSci 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we should simply cite that fact in the article, rather than adopting one partcular source's (sligtly hazy) definition in the title. Call it something neutral in the title, and expand upon who calls/called it what in the text, where references can be given. -Splashtalk 17:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please lock moves. This is getting a little out of hand. Bwilder1998 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Going by List_of_disasters#Mining_disasters, it seems disaster is the status quo. It is also an official term, so is suitably eutral. If it isn't then "accident" is far more specific than "incident". ed g2s • talk 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it was an accident? -Splashtalk 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as the entire article is based on other sources, and not conspiracy theories, it seems safe to base the title on what's been reported. ed g2s • talk 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems safer still to avoid deciding it was one thing or another until that is confirmed. What is the particular objection to the entirely neutral "incident" term? Drama? We don't need any.-Splashtalk 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
'incident' is generally-speaking a weasel word and smells of downplaying, somewhat euphemistic. Morwen - Talk 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If by "weasel" you mean "neutral", then yes. If by weasel, you mean deliberately obfuscatory, then no. It's not a euphemism for "accident" since noone knows whether it was an accident or what yet (AGF aside...) and I'm still inclined to think that it could yet become a "scandal" or somesuch given what's happening. However, if people feel the level of drama conveyed by the title is more appropriate with "disaster" (per WP:DRAMA, presumably) then I don't actually care all that much, since there is at least a source that reckons it probably is, althought it calls it a "historical" definition. -Splashtalk 18:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And not only is "incident" weaselly here, it has come out here in the discussion above that none other than the MSHA itself refers to any accident that costs more than five lives as a mining disaster. What about that can't some people understand? It is an official term used by the appropriate agency of the United States Government. It can and should be used here. Daniel Case 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Explain how it is weaselly, please, without just saying it isn't dramatic enough. (And you'll sound a lot better if you don't imply stupidity on the part of other editors. There's really no need.) -Splashtalk 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to explain anything. I am not the one who said anything about it being dramatic or not. My argument is simply that it is official government policy to refer to any mining accident that claims five or more lives as a mining disaster. All the other articles in the mining disaster category follow this nomenclature. It is used in the media and by the industry. By following official policy and accepted usage, the use of "disaster" does not imply fault on anyone's part. And the loss of twelve lives, whatever the cause, is a disaster. Daniel Case 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is move protected, do not move the page until the dicussion is resolved, even if you are an sysop. ed g2s • talk 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. I can accept this name for the page (I created it originally, after all). Again, it is an official mining disaster now. Let us leave it there. Daniel Case 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't protected, and it's a touch odd for you to move it to your preferred title under those same conditions. -Splashtalk 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It says right above what I wrote that it is move protected. And I didn't do it ... I'm not an admin. Not yet, anwyay. Daniel Case 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Count the indent. I wasn't replying to you. -Splashtalk 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem, but the protecting admin said nothing about it being his preferred title ... that was me. Daniel Case 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
He moved it and then protected it. It's much more common practise (for obvious reasons) to simply apply protection on the then-current version and leave the discussion to thrash it out. Protecting after moving it to a title he chose was the wrong way to do it. -Splashtalk 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
He says nothing about him preferring the title personally. He just said it seems to be the status quo (and he's right, as you are about the only one arguing for "incident"). Strikes me as not the best of faith. Daniel Case 18:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, not to get all preachy, but wasn't a lot of this unecessary? Once someone found the government definition of "disaster" and it was clear that the Sago "thing" fit that AND once it was determined that Wikipedia's category is also called "Mining Disasters," was there any doubt that this should be called Sago Mine disaster? To tack on the 2006 in the midst of all the chaos just seemed to be stirring the pot. Couldn't we have come back later and tacked on the 2006 (which is, in any case, not consistent with other articles in the Mining Disasters category -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mining_disasters)? Crunch 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No argument here. But what's done is done, and it's protected now. Might as well move on. --Aaron 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I was saying all along. A shame that it took a protect to win the argument (Sort of an indirect way, it seems, of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Daniel Case 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe just some good lessons for us all for next time -- though hopefully under less sad circumstances. Sorry again if I'm sounding preachy. Crunch 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatfield Picture

Since no Ben Hatfield article exists (and therefore, no picture), I figured I'd get one of him talking at his press conference. For now, feel free to use Image:HatfieldSago.JPG if/when providing information about Hatfield/Int'l. Coal Group's response to the disaster. appzter 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSHA paragraph

Some have suggested that the severity of the accident's aftermath was caused in part by inadequate safety standards endorsed by the MSHA under David Lauriski, who was George W. Bush's appointment to head the agency [1]. Among other problems, they cite the rejection of a proposed standard, "Escapeways and Refuges", by Lauriski's administration, which would have provided for additional escape routes for trapped miners.

is occasionally removed by people, either silently, or claiming that it violates WP:V. Please note that the paragraph's claim is that "some have suggested X", and that this is sourced to the original article. The paragraph does not claim it to be true, it only reports on other people's views, which is how WP:NPOV works.

Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not to be used as sources. Claims attested only by sources that rely on guilt by association are not considered acceptable. Both of these policies are clearly stated on the front page of WP:V. --Aaron 06:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these points are germane. The article is reporting on the claims, not making them. The blogs are not being used to source facts. Your interpretation of wikipedia policy would mean that wikipedia could not discuss anything at all related to blogs or the blogosphere. It could not, for example, discuss claims made by blogs during memogate.

Again, not to repeat myself but: the paragraph is only describing the claims made by others, and the reaction to those claims. It is not asserting those claims which is why WP:V does not apply.

Sdedeo (tips) 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is possible that what is causing the conflict here is that the material is appearing in a section otherwise devoted to reporting facts about the mine. I have created an additional section in the article, "Media response", to contain more general sorts of criticisms and kvetching made. I've also further expanded the section. Does this work? Sdedeo (tips) 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


"A neighbor of one of the trapped miners told the media that the man had recently expressed concern that he could be killed 'because of the idiots at the mine.'"

That's the kind of thing that get's Wikipedia in trouble. Which neighbor, which miner, told which media? It's hearsay at best and its not sourced.

There's also a ton of explanatory information about the mine's safety record at www.msha.gov. --ben

I agree. Which neighbord, which miner. Exactly. Crunch 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I googled "because of the idiots of the mine" and the second result was a Washington Post article with the quote [2]. So I guess I'll put it back in? Sdedeo (tips) 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Eh, just read the article; the quote is really hearsay, and it's hard to see where it belongs. Anyway, that's the source, in case someone cares! Sdedeo (tips) 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigous States of America

Radios are reporting that some relatives already want to start frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars damages over the miscommunication. Could someone extend the article to cover this topic? Anything like this is considered absurd and outrageous in most places outside the USA. 195.70.32.136 09:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are reports that the families want to sue the mine company because of the mine's dangerous conditions. This does not seem frivolous and in any case should be reported factually, if and when lawsuits are filed. I don't think media reports about angry families saying they're going to sue about the miscommunication fits in this article if such lawsuits come to pass. Crunch 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Crunch. The number of deficiencies reported by the state and federal mining regulators for the Sago mine were a tragedy waiting to happen. ICG classified them as "minor", but what people fail to realize is that they an indication of a mine falling apart when taken together. So, unlike certain other lawsuits, I certainly do not see an issue with this one being filed.--Silverhand 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased section

Someone should definitely edit that biased section referring to the 'corporate fatcats', etc.

Somebody has gone ahead and done so, removing the entire para which I think is fine. I've removed the NPOV template since I think that was the reason it was added. Sdedeo (tips) 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor section necessary?

Is it necessary to have an entire section named Survivor that just lists Randal L. McCloy, Jr and his age? I understand the desire to be parallel to the Victims list, but details of McCloy surviving, his rescue and his recovery are included throughout the entire article. The Victims section is the only place where the victims names and ages documented. I think it's a different thing and I think the Survivor section is quite uncessary. Crunch 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this has now been merged with the Victims section. This seems to be a good solution. Crunch 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

A photo of the note the miners wrote can be found here [3]. The note should get mentioned in the article. Also, the media is reporting that it says, among other things, "I just went to sleep".

As you can see in the picture, the writing isn't very clear (perhaps due to low oxygen, other toxins, and maybe it was written in total darkness; I don't know). If you ask me, it says "I just want to sleep". That makes a more-logical sentence but also makes for a less-peaceful story. I'd guess that they weren't able to think clearly at that point, so an illogical sentence like "I just went to sleep" is understandable, but it looks to me like these countless articles are jumping to conclusions. It says "I weet to sleep" as much as it says "I want to sleep" or "I went to sleep". —BenFrantzDale 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There's clearly a word between "I" and "went," though. Went/Weet/Want is in dispute, I guess, but "just" is there. - Hbdragon88 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical formula

I'm not sure that the large chemical formula in the Explosion section adds anything useful. It's probably not easily understandable by most readers and the phenomenon it's trying to illustrate might better be explained in text. Crunch 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Ajdz 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed Crunch 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNN Section

In all honesty, do we really need a whole section rehash the work of Anderson Cooper and CNN? He was one of about 50 CNNers there, and just a fraction of the entire media response. Can this be reduced to note, yeah, Anderson Cooper stayed on the air for hours? All this does it repeat details already on the page and pay tribute to the CNN god. --Ben


Anderson Cooper's coverage of the Sago Mine Disaster went on for most of the 45+ hours it lasted.

That's not even true. Cooper didn't even arrive until Tuesday afternoon, just hours before the first miner was found.

I think Cooper was there on Monday night or Tuesday, wasn't he? And the first miner was found Wednesday near midnight., not Tuesday. In any case, I've done significant cleanup of the CNN section. I'm not really convinced it belongs. It makes it seem as if CNN was the only 24-hour cable news channel present at Sago and that Anderson Cooper was the only reporter on scene. Neither of these is true. CNN had an entire team of on-air reporters on site as did MSNBC and Fox News. The only thing perhaps notable about CNN is the way Cooper broke the news fron Lynette Roby about the false reports of 12 survivors. Crunch 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it was Tuesday, I was there. I agree that the only thing noteworthy is Cooper's breaking the news that they were dead. --ben

"OK. Thanks, I agree. The story is already too long and more info is going to be added about the cause of the explosion, so I think we can edit this down even more. It came from an entire separate article on CNN's role . Crunch 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it the entire article again, the Cooper-Lynette Roby thing is already covered. I merged what little is unique from the CNN section into the Media section. Crunch 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another factual point is that CNN didn't even break the story. AP write Vicki Smith in Morgantown, did at 11:27 a.m., Jan. 2. She issued this news alert across the wire: TALLMANSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - An underground explosion at an Upshur County coal mine has trapped 13 miners, a county emergency official said.

That was followed by three or four updates before CNN even started reporting it. And, by the way, CNN was picking up the AP's information. ~~Ben

I will say, though, it's certainly looking a lot better than it did...
Good point again, Ben. I'll clarify it. Crunch 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Criticism

Is giving undue weight to Bush admin enemies and opinions. MSHA has answered some of these claims on the Web site and these should be added...

Sure. Can you provide a source for the MSHA responses? Sdedeo (tips) 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I've found the source for MSHA responses [4], and I'll add it in soon (next few hours.) Sdedeo (tips) 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and added the MSHA responses in two paragraphs, citing that source. Some of the material in the pages perhaps could also go in the "safety violations" section earlier in the article. In any case, thank you for pointing out the MSHA page, which is very germane. I've gone ahead now and removed the NPOV tag on that section. Sdedeo (tips) 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subheads

This article is getting way too long, it needs more subheads and categorizing on the page to make it navigable... can some sections be grouped under broader headings? --Ben

[edit] Downplaying CNN's media coverage role

I feel as if the media response section somewhat denigrates all of the expansive breaking coverage CNN provided concerning this tragedy with both true information and misinformation as it broke. I think it is incorrect and without merit to sort of make all of the network coverage "equal" when CNN obviously outshined its competitors...I made it a point to watch all 24-hour news channels and MSNBC and FOX News did not stand up, eventhough they were all present along with CNN. Anderson Cooper deserves his own section, although I'm not sure how encylcopedic that would be. --Caponer 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

maybe you watched it at home, but I was there for three days. CNN didn't outshine anyone, they relied on AP coverage on the ground for a day and half and only had a dominating presence a couple hours before the miners were found. Anderson Cooper wasn't even there until Tuesday afternoon. There were hundreds of media there. Giving weight to one network just because they have Anderson Cooper is totally POV. --Ben
If the point is that CNN "outshined" its competitors, that's not encyclopedic at all. That's an opinion. CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. are all 24 hours news channels that provide breaking news coverage and wall-to-wall coverage for big news events (Hurricane Katrina, Ariel Sharon Deathwatch, Sago Mine -- not that all those stories are equal, but they're just things that come to mind). CNN may have a larger budget and have larger staff but if we start getting into which cable channel does a better job, that's not encylopedic, it's a media review. Crunch 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Very strong agreement with Crunch. "CNN was better" is a POV, and we don't do POVs here. You would have to find a number of mainstream media news articles (not blogs) all agreeing that CNN's coverage was in some way infinitely preferable to everyone else's before we could even begin to consider making such a claim in the article. --Aaron 03:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] slimming intro

Hi all. The intro to the article is very long. I think it should be about two paragraphs. Much of the info is repeated in later sections. In general, the intro should give the bare facts and outline; the rest should appear under later subheadings. Sdedeo (tips) 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "photo op" comment

Representative Capito is from the Buchannon area. Wouldn't say exactly that she only came by for a photo opportunity.

Argh, people keep putting it in. I took it out again. If you see it come back in, do remove it yourself, I think it's pretty clear that its unsourced and completely POV. Sdedeo (tips) 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Ben Hatfield page

I just started the Ben Hatfield page in case anyone wants to work on that. Thanks.–Clpalmore

[edit] Be careful with Revert

When reversing an edit, please be careful when reverting to an earlier version that you don't also throw out good changes. Some one correctly reverted the change of the mine's location from Sago back to Tallmansville, but in the process also reverted a typo correction and one editor's reworking which was probably fine. Crunch 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phelps

I'm not sure how notable this is. I cut the section down eliminating the quotes from Phelps which are all in the footnoted sources. That should be sufficient. Also, it's not the funeral. These will have all been held by then. It's some knd of memorial service.

[edit] Consolidating and Cleanup

I started working on consolidating and cleaning up this article, now that the story has stabilzied somewhat. The goals are:

  1. Make the intro much shorter and more concise.
  2. Move/merge info from the intro to the relevant parts in sections below
  3. Clean up all of the other sections, particularly delete redundant informaton. For example, there is informaiton about the mine's ownership in two places. Is this necessary?
  4. When possible, try to keep the story chronological: Explosion, Rescue efforts, Finding miners (dead? alive? media problems?), Investigation, Funerals, etc. --

I hope others are still interested in working on this article. -- Crunch 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, not exactly the direction I was hoping for. It's gotten more cluttered. and longer. I think adding content that says, "Reporter X in newspaper Y said Z" is uncessary. It's better to say "This happened" and put the reporter's citation in the reference section. For example, if we're talking about when the rescue effort began, talk about when the rescue began. Then later in the Investigation section, you can talk about conflicting theories about why the rescue was delaying with footnotes citing the sources. Every minute piece of information related to the Sago Mine Disaster does not have to be in this article. Crunch 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This needs fixing as soon as possible

Considering the edit history, i'll leave this to someone else to fix.

There is a serious error in the section:

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee government investigation

Perhaps because of all the moves, the section leaves an entirely wrong impression.

The names of Senators are listed, in connection with signing a letter.

Then a couple of paras are quoted, as if they were in the letter signed.

Then there is the link to the PDF of the letter.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/1-10-06%20Enzi-Kennedy%20Ltr.pdf

Here is the problem: the letter doesn't contain those paragraphs.

Those paragraphs come from a press release issued the next day.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/pr011106.html

Good work, everyone, it is great to see such a comprehensive overview!

Hope this fixes it. Also posted links to testimony. Didn't have time to print out and summarize yet, as pdf files. Will do, however. Evidently Arlen Spector is giving them hell

See http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006012332 --Beth Wellington 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And here i insert something related, for those interested in the content-- this is a new email list for folks interested in advocacy for the miners. I don't know if this is appropriate for the main page.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sago_outrage/

Richard Myers

[edit] Article title

Can we remove the "2006" from the article title? No need to specify the year when there's only one, e.g., Oklahoma City bombing. Coffee 04:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know if it's possible to see the history but this current title came about after a bit of a bit of a tussle in which the title went quickly from Sago mine accident to Sago mine tragedy to Sago mine disaster and back again. After it was finally settled on disaster, someone tacked on the year, which they may argue will be necessary if there is another disaster at the Sago mine in the future but I think is cumbersome now. I think we can go ahead and rename. If you do it, please move the this page, as well. It's an option. Crunch 11:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, done. Coffee 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

This article is a mess, with redundant statements being made again and again (for example, the conflicting reports on the body count). --70.108.56.178 10:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitant Parts Per Million, please

On CO (Carbon Monoxide):"200 parts per million is the maximum considered safe" "the 400 parts per million tolerance of the human body" Which is the right one, 400 or 200 ppm? get the facts constitant or don't use them people. --Firehawk1717 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

A look at the Dead external links page shows no less than thirteen dead links (Error 404) in this article. Someone familiar with the subject needs to go through with a chainsaw and do some pruning. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/g/Talk%7ESago_Mine_disaster_b05f.html"