Talk:Farmington Mine disaster
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Farmington Mine disaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 20, 2014. |
Old discussion from Talk:Farmington Mining Disaster edit
Many phrases from this article, as well as the overall structure, seem to be directly copied from http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvcoal/farm.html "About 5:30 a.m. on November 20, an explosion of nightmarish proportions ripped through the Farmington mine." etc etc. The page claims that it was designed in 1999, and it's not clear what the copyright status is. Harveyj 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
With the Farmington Mining Disaster being mentioned in the news and brought to light by the current disaster, we should be working on crafting a new article and not wasting this article's space with a copyvio template. --Caponer 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can work on a more neutral version. Joe McCullough | (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmington_Mining_Disaster/Temp Joe McCullough | (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
(untitled) edit
I propoesd a merge between this article and Consol No. 9 Mine Accident. It looks like both were created to fix the copyvio issue with the main Farmington accident article, so I think they should be hooked up. Joe McCullough | (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Right now there are three articles: This one, Farmington Mining Disaster which has copyright violation issues and Consol No. 9 Mine Accident. I think it's clear there should be only one. Which title makes the most sense: Farmington or Consult No. 9? Also, if we go with Consul should we rename it from "accident" to "disaster" ? See the long discussion regarding the naming of the Sago article. Crunch 15:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, Hopefully I got the three pages all merged and marked for deleted appropriately. Crunch 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Techinally, it was the "Farmington No. 9 Mining Disaster," from what I understand. And this article has descriptions, particularly the last graf, that I've seen in my local newspaper --Ben
Renaming? edit
See Category talk:Mining disasters for a discussion on whether to rename this and similar articles to remove the capitalisation. Ziggurat 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting part about local play edit
I deleted the paragraph of the article about Remembering #9-Stories from the Farmington Mine Disaster. This paragraph is about a play about the Farmington Mine Disaster. The article is about the disaster itself. If you add it back in, please explain your reasoning in this talk page. March 2012
Cause edit
The last citation added(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4626518/michael-d-michael-administrator-v-consolidation-coal-company/) contains the supreme court of west virginia unequivocally stating that the cause of the explosion was methane build-up due to the failed exhaust fan bypassing the alarm system. This article should be updated to reflect that it is known as a methane explosion caused by negligence on the part of the mine owners. Additionally, the word "alleges" should be removed from the text around the lawsuit as they were accepted as fact by the defendants and the courts 2601:401:501:F990:BD2F:9BDD:CE0B:8386 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)