Talk:Massachusetts gas explosions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Evacuation Count?[edit]

Is there a good source for how many people were to evacuate? I'm seeing numbers from "hundreds" to 51,000. — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Living document[edit]

Bizarre case. It will be interesting to see this page develop, as this story evolves through the disaster response, investigation and litigation phases. Thanks for everyone's efforts here. I will be following this page closely.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

For the record, I am here as an editor, not an admin, because I am involved (I started the article).

This string of edits was made by User:EEng. It was reverted by User:Knowledgekid87.

Per WP:BRD, the onus is on EEng to get consensus for its inclusion. Until then, EEng's changes should not be made.

EEng, your edit summary when reverting Knowledgekid87 was about the content itself. With respect, reverting to restore your version because you think your version is best was inappropriate. The content itself should be discussed here.

So, two things: The procedure, and the content itself.

We all agree on the procedure, right?

So, about the content. Please discuss it. I'm sure plenty of EEng's changes makes sense.

Knowledgekid87: what is acceptable to you and what is not?

Community: what do you think?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I just went through the string of edits and they all look like improvements to me. The article as it stands now reads like something from the Weekly World News. What exactly are the objections? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, Kendall-K1, I wish you'd posted sooner because that would have saved me the trouble of composing the following huffy tirade:
The content and summaries of my edits speak for themselves; the right thing to do, when an experienced editor takes the trouble to make a long series of edits to a new article, is to step through the diffs and selectively revert here and there where perhaps your helpful fellow editor has misapprehended something – not mass-revert without (obviously) looking at any of them. As A.F. says, certainly plenty of them have to make sense.
But if my fellow editors prefer it remain a numbing freshman-quality jumble of misread sources and tautology, I guess that's the way things will have to be. I'm certainly not going to waste my time opening discussion threads to explain why, in an article about a series of gas fires, it's unnecessary to say that the reason gas was shut off was "to prevent more fires" [1] (as if our readers are mentally defective); or why it's inappropriate for the article to refer to what happened as "the ordeal" [2] (with extra points for the illiteracy of "impacted from").
EEng 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Rather than throw out content, can things be reworded or salvaged from the sources per WP:BABY? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You make good points, EEng.
The thing is, when I see an editor (User:Knowledgekid87) with 10 years with 61,580 edits reverting and asking for BRD, I trust there is a good reason.
I approve of the BRD approach here because without it, there could be a number of points that get fought over, and then nobody knows what the last stable version is, and zillions of keystrokes land here. This quick talk chat is to prevent a can of worms, not to open one.
"I'm certainly not going to waste my time opening discussion threads...": Hold on. Don't run off. SNice.svg You may not have to do anything to have your changes back. You already have Kendall-K1's approval. Two more max and it's one-click back to your version.
And if not? Knowledgekid87, can we make this easy? What exactly is the problem, and what do you suggest? Can you be specific?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
For a breakdown I am going to go with the diffs:
[3] "there's nothing to suggest these leaks are related to the topic of this article" - Did you check sources to make sure of this? This appears to be an ongoing problem overall with the aging structure in the United States.
[4] "ce, too much obvious detail" - You are saying that reporting the amount of homes on fire is too detailed? This would figure into the property damage.
[5] " trim, ce" - In this day and age terrorism is the first thing on a lot of minds so it is important that it be included.
[6] "the source says officials were critical of the slow response" - If that were the case then why did you also get rid of the response by Columbia gas?
[7] "gridlock is a highly specific technical term, and is not what happened here" - gridlock did occur according to sources.
[8] "Not "the integrity of Columbia Gas" but rather their "integrity management system". This is all standard stuff to which obviously will be investigated" - This appears to be wholesale deletion, the information given is present in the source used.
[9] "gas meters aren't people" - Well of course not but this isn't what the source is saying. Gas meters can be used for businesses with lots of people.
[10] "order out of chaos" - Any reason why you got rid of the amount of residents affected?
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"there's nothing to suggest these leaks are related to the topic of this article" – That's true. Neither of the cited sources connects this with the topic of this article. So this is WP:SYNTH and does not belong in this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, how about looking through the edits and restoring changes you find acceptable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, it might take me a bit though to go through what EEng did. As for the backround section, why not just refocus it to be around the aging structure of the United States which IS mentioned in the sources as being relevant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with including what's in the sources, as long as it has something to do with this topic and is not undue. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
... and doesn't recite the routine and obvious. There's no purpose in telling the reader that "The Governor monitored the situation and kept in touch with local officials." DUH. Of course he did. No one five years from now will care about that, or have his understanding of the topic enhanced by it. (If the governor ignored the explosions and watched reruns of I Love Lucy the whole time, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.) EEng 03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You'll save time by selectively undoing my changes rather than selectively redoing them. And please, read the whole of each diff, check the rest of the article, look at the sources (where appropriate), and think about what we want the reader to understand before saying something was inappropriately removed or whatever. Some or all of your comments above show you haven't done that. EEng 03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
EEng is giving some pretty good suggestions there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I just realized that if you had a brother named Af, he'd be Af Frodesiak. EEng 05:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't. But I have a sister named Noa Frodesiak. She's a total fridge, so I'm obviously the more popular one. SNice.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I got all of the edits that weren't disputed, you guys are free to correct ones that I missed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see the article still jumps around in time, still implies the 20,000 leaks are somehow related (despite citing only sources published before the explosions started), still says the NTSB plans to investigate "the integrity of Columbia Gas", still says the governor and mayor were critical "of the response issued", still parrots a local reporter's misuse of the term "gridlock", still gives conflicting figures on how many fires there were, still says "faculty and students" were evacuated (presumably staff and visitors were left to their fate), still assumes readers don't know that terrorism is a form of foul play, and so on. Apparently the read, check, look, think approach recommended wasn't adopted. EEng 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The stuff left in should be the disputed stuff above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me get this right. You still think there's dispute over whether the NTSB plans to investigate "the integrity of Columbia Gas"? You still think this has something to do with leaks? Did you read the sources? You dispute that the article first says there were "20 to 25" fires, then 40, then "60 to 80"? This is getting silly. While it's somewhat improved there's a reason Kendall-K1 said the article "reads like something from the Weekly World News". What in the world does "explosions and fires broke out in as many as 40 homes, with over 80 individual fires" mean -- there were on average two fires in each home? Really??? EEng 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I see Kendall's doing his best to remedy the most absurd stuff an inch at a time. I don't do this often, but it's too painful to watch a good editor's time wasted this way so I'm unwatching. My parting recommendation is that "my" version, which is favored 2.5-to-1 by editors expressing an opinion (counting A.F. as 1/2) be restored, and then the kid can explain why in heaven's name he wants, for example, to add back the name of the apparently nonnotable "MEMA director Kurt Schwartz", as if somehow readers are enlightened by such miscellaneous factettes. Ping me if I can help in some particular way. EEng 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I made the mistake of dropping in to see if there's been any response, and couldn't resist removing the most obviously absurd bit of the article -- the idea that leaky pipelines are somehow "background" to this incident. I'm unwatching again. Good luck. EEng 22:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Article name change[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering if this article should be renamed Merrimack Valley gas explosions, due to the large number of articles which are calling it by that name? In most circumstances I've seen, the name given is not Massachusetts gas explosions, and giving the Merrimack Valley name will make the article easier to find in searches. Just a consideration. Thank you for you input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziguezon (talkcontribs) 00:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course. EEng 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Gas transmission lines[edit]

I placed a "cn" tag in the infobox, which says that the cause of the explosions was "over-pressurized gas transmission lines." I do want to see a source for that. A gas transmission line is a big pipe that carries gas from one state or country to another.[11] The results aren't all in yet, but it sure looks like this was much more localized, perhaps to a distribution line. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


To add to the article. (Sorry, just out the door.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)