Talk:Minot train derailment
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in North Dakota may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
NTSB / RAR edit
Has anyone actually read the National Transportation Safety Board Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-04/01 PB2004-916301 Notation 7461A? I just have and it's actually facinating reading, if you can get past the finger-pointing at everyone (but the federal government for failure to provide oversight). The real question - why is it not listed as a reference, and then used as one? It really added some background information on the train wreck, and although I personally missed the gas cloud (I was luckily on vacation with my family), I was able to see the after effects personally and how it affected the whole area. My personal experiences coupled with the media coverage (slim though it was), adding this report on to all that, really gave me a total picture of what happened. - NDCompuGeek 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've found it hard to get those reports; if you could scan a copy, I'm sure we could get it up on Wikisource, which would make it much easier to reference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Article name edit
It would have been nice to discuss the move before making it. I for one do not believe that we should include the state in the name, as names are usually short and descriptive, not comprehensive. It's Air Florida Flight 90, not Crash of Air Florida Flight 90 into the 14th Street Bridge, Washington D.C., for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality edit
This article sounds like it was written by an apologist for Clear Channel. Needs some major clean up. -RomeW (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's a lot more back and forth there then necessary. We can point out that EAS was not activated, in part because the radio station was unmanned and in part because of failure on the part of the authorities, and leave it at that. We don't need to be attacking Clear Channel, either; we may as well blame Minot State University for not running a 24-hour radio station, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The case is best known as a cautionary tale about the dangers of media consolidation and removing any local elements from what is inherently a local medium (terrestrial radio). Given that, it would make sense to make the case against Clear Channel, and then note the other factors that may complicate the narrative. Threadbare (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion of the failure of radio is important as there was a rumoured long-range suggestion (proven to be false at the moment) to remove AM/FM radios from cars. In discussing this current topic, I went to look for the Minot Train Derailment to refer to it and found the Wikipedia article to reasonably represent what I've heard from other sources. In 2006 the US Congress ruled that it is Congress's desire to maintain terrestrial radio. [1] Rlhess (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Track ownership edit
The article says that 'the NTSB determined the probable cause of the derailment to be ineffective Canadian Pacific (track) inspection and maintenance procedures" so was the track/infrastructure (in North Dakota) owned by Canadian Pacific? Hugo999 (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)