Talk:Pike River Mine disaster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox classification

The infobox (mine) only describes the location, what's produced and others that are already on the Pike River Mine article. Can someone please change the info box from mine to 'News event' and produce real info on the accident. 121.74.70.202 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Trapped?

I am hesitant about using the word trapped to describe the situation of the miners. There is no evidence that the shaft was blocked, epecially as two miners managed to escape. Kwiki6 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe trapped is appropriate in that the others were unable to escape, regardless of whether or not the shaft was physically blocked. I think that if they were in the mine for five days, there was something keeping them from getting out. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not know if they were trapped or not (as in if there were any survivors after the first blast), that is unlikely to be known. Not having the word "trapped" keeps the article neutral and free from crystal balling. Bidgee (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I initially added "trapped" to the lede to clarify that 29 miners were unable to exit the mine. This may be stating the (implicitly) obvious, but the flow of the lede was a bit jarring in describing that two miners escaped while 29 "remained", and as of 24 November are presumed dead. On the other hand, "trapped" may not be the best description for any miners that may have been killed in the initial explosion. I've removed the word for now, but the wording still needs to be tweaked. Perhaps a couple of sentences describing the rescue effort will improve the lede's flow (which will probably be done in due time anyway). – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

List of miners

I've restored the list of miners to the relevant section. The rationale for removing (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) did not seem relevant in this case. That section of the policy says articles should not be created about these people; it does not say they cannot be added to a more general article. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy aside, the question we should really ask is, do the families of the 29 want their names there? Possibly not, I would say. Calistemon (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If they were notable before the disaster then maybe but I do not see how adding names will add to the article. We are not a memorial but an encyclopaedia. Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see such "lists of victims" attempted at many articles about tragic events. While I understand the good intent in acknowledging the deceased, their death does not of itself confer notability. Other than a difference in magnitude, there is no rationale for listing all victims at Pike River any more than there would be for listing all victims of World War II. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing a name of victims seems to me necessary to give encylopedic coverage of the event. They are not notable themselves, I don't think anyone is suggesting they are. The intent is not to "acknowledge the deceased" but to provide a detailed article which presents all the facts of the disaster. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the list would bring any encyclopedic value to the article. The section "Identity of the miners" already bring a good summary of the miners. What additional value does it bring the reader if he can read the list of names? Calistemon reasoning don't apply in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't censored in any way. --Kslotte (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside and noting the way disaster articles evolve, it won't be long before we see an attempt at a section or article titled International reaction to the Pike River Mine disaster. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell not lists of victims again. Wasn't there an RfC a few months ago that knocked this on its head. Perhaps I'm dreaming. Anyway it's obviously inappropriate content that should go. What on earth does it add to a so-called encyclopaedia? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@WWGB you forgot Timeline of the Pike River Mine disaster :) --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking in the Ext link to a list at the NZ Police website was a good move. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the brief description as it appears here, combined with the external link to the official list, is sufficient. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too. O can understand the reasons for wanting it to be there, but the external link is sufficient. The current short paragraph lists those who have "external notability", as it were, which is appropriate. A reasonable analogy would be the articles on the WTC attacks - imagine them if they had the names of all victims listed. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Miners

Are here. I'm emailed the police to clarify the license. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you will have any luck with that. Their copyright page has the usual blurp. Schwede66 01:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I talked to their webmaster and have gotten permission to use. I am not sure if the permission is enough but have uploaded one photo to commons here and submitted an OTRS ticket. The Police webmaster has also advised me that they will be updating their site copyright to reflect the NZGOAL open government policy. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you win. I've created a category on commons for NZ miners, so that the file doesn't just sit there totally uncategorised. By the way, is there a standard blurb available somewhere that one can send to copyright holders of photos? Schwede66 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You probably want Commons:Email_templates and WP:BRP, although it's hard to make people fill them out I find. In this case I wasn't able to hence my pessimism about keeping the photos up - SimonLyall (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What additional value would it be to have photos of them? It starts to taste like WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A link to the list in "External Links" would be appropiate. --Kslotte (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Talking with the commons editor has pretty much confirmed my initial feeling that the license on the photos is not going to be compatible with commons. So even if we want to include the photos that the police have released then we won't be able to. The article could use "some" photos though of the mine, or area perhaps - SimonLyall (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

reasons for adding back the victims

The reasons for removing the list of victims names in this particular case has nothing to do with any of the reasons given as Martin said in the first comment under "List of Miners" above and is actually AGAINST official wikipedia guidelines.
The Official guideline on this on wikipedia (Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL#MEMORIAL) says:
Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
1. These people are not random friends, relatives, acquaintances of the wikipedia editors - certainly not mine in anycase. - so this reason for deletion is not valid.
2. These people DO satisfy the notability requirements in the fact that they have received EXTENSIVE media coverage by all the major media outlets. Even biographies have been published on each of these people. The same has not occured for random world war 2 victims or other disasters around the world - so this reason for deletion is not valid.
3. peoples personal views on the subject are irrelevant. just because someone doesn't want it here has no bearing. If you apply that reasoning, then virtually no article on wikipedia would survive as someone, somewhere probably doesn't like it. To say that the family does not want a list of victims is rediculous in the extreme considering the fact that the family themselves provided the photos, biographies, ages, and residence of each of the victims to major newspapers and TV companies in the hope that providing a face to the victims would encourage further help & sympathy amoung other reasons, so this reason for deletion is not valid.
4. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability_(people) below are some OFFICIAL wikipedia guidelines.

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ie none of the victims or families owns shares in the TV, Newspapers, etc who have published this information, and there are no articles on the people themselves in wikipedia. They are INDEPENDANT of the subject!

"The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." The ENTIRE STORY was about the ATTEMPTED RESCUE of the VICTIMS - not just a random explosion in a mine.. they WERE THE STORY! there would be no significant story without the victims or survivors.
"Lists of people who are not famous in themselves, but linked to an article is perfect justification for including them, eg lists of school teachers, alumni etc", Again the victims are intricately linked to the story.

"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or BOTH. In considering whether or not to create SEPERATE ARTICLES, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." This discussion is not about SEPERATE articles, but the fact REMAINS, that these individuals played a SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE EVENT.

"Also If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." ie the main police officers, the head of the rescue team, the boss of the mine etc should have a separate article - but this does not diminish the need or appropriateness of the list of any of the deceased as they were all part of the event, were all televised/written about significately

This discussion is not about creation of SEPERATE ARTICLES on the subject, but only the inclusion of these people in a list which is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with wikipedia consensus guidelines, as the victims of this tragedy fit in with ALL the guidelines after CAREFUL reading - not a brief look! For this reason I intend to add them back in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talk • contribs)

If you add it back in, you'll be acting against the consensus above. I understand your efforts to find a policy-based solution to this, but there probably isn't one. Looking around we don't have a clear policy either way. So it comes down to an editorial decision about whether such a list benefits the article. The consensus above leans to "no".--Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The casualties of this event should be mentioned to the same degree as the casualties of the September 11 attacks and other such events. --ClubOranje^T 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some articles list victims - San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre , Columbine_High_School_massacre , Beltway_sniper_attacks , Virginia_Tech_massacre , Charles_Whitman ( plus List of Charles Whitman's victims ) - SimonLyall (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists may be of interest in this discussion. Regards, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to go there, Upper Big Branch Mine disaster does not, nor does Sago Mine disaster from what I can tell. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like I started this whole thing, so here's my reasoning. Basically, I used, as my edit summary said, WP:NOTMEMORIAL on the basis that most of these people had no individual notability, and therefore, including a list of their names would serve no better purpose than to simply memorialize them. Despite the claims above, I firmly believe that the vast majority of those dead are not notable. They have recieved a brief flurry of interest in news reports, but in that case, they were a secondary story to the mine disaster as a whole, and passing mention does not confer notability. At the very most, each individual person would have fallen into the realm of WP:BLP1E, and would therefore still be inappropriate for inclusion. Also, I fully admit that I was influenced by the fact that I've been involved with several airplane crash articles, where such lists of victims are often added and promptly removed per NOTMEMORIAL. C628 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly the Portuguese version of this article does list the names of the victims.

Every language Wiki may have its own set of rules, as long as they don't conflict with WP:5P. This means that other language wiki's may or may not have certain content, and that rules and policies vary. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the list has since been removed from the Portuguese version (which must have had the same source as the version here, since it had the same consistent mis-spelling of Runanga as "Rununga"!), with the edit summary "sem destaque" ("not notable") Grutness...wha? 02:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest a possible compromise? At some point in the future, it is certain that there will be a memorial on the West Coast listing the names of those killed. When that happens, it would be perfectly appropriate for a photograph of it to appear in this article. If that photograph just happens to show the list of the names... That is how the Kaitangata, New Zealand article deals with the situation - using File:Kaitangatamemorial.jpg. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Add year to title?

I note that most other articles relating to mining disasters have the year as the first part of the title (see the articles listed in Category:2010 mining disasters and similar by-year categories). Should this article be at 2010 Pike River Mine disaster? Grutness...wha? 02:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PRECISION, article titles should "be precise but only as precise as is needed". Since there are no articles about other Pike River Mine disasters, a qualification by year seems unnecessary. This is unlike articles such as 2010 New Zealand Music Awards, where the year of the event distinguishes the article from others. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I decided to bring it up here rather than just moving it; it's just that - as I said - the vast majority of other articles on mine disasters seem to have years listed, even when they are the only mine disasters from those locations. It has a certain logic since it it makes sense to tie an event to its time as much as to its location. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From my experience even when technically the year is commonly specified for disasters. This is sometimes done for clarity purposes when there have been other incidents even if these don't have and likely don't merit an article. There is also sometimes some demand for inter-article consistency even though there isn't really any general requirement for that. On the other hand, Pike River Mine disaster or something similar is likely to be the common name for this event and the issue of confusion with other events without articles doesn't apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grutness...wha? 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence of intro

Changed from "It involved the country's worst loss of life as the result of a single event since the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901." to "The series of explosions at the Pike River Mine has resulted in the country's worst loss of life caused by a single disaster since the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901."

The original wording felt awkward and ambiguous...was it Pike River or Ralph's Mine which cause the worst loss of life? Also, this has not been a single event, it has been a series of explosions and no-one can say with certainty which one, if any, caused the loss of life. It may have been toxic gases, lack of oxygen or dehydration...in which case it's a combination of factors which lead to their death, not a single event. Whateverblah (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this to "The Pike River Mine event" which follows the earlier sentence which also refers to the Pike River Mine event. This may not be the best wording so feel free to improve it although it's not uncommon a series of consecutive and related incidents is considered one event. However it's better then your wording as your wording implies the explosions were the cause of the death. As you yourself said, it could have been toxic gases, lack of oxygen etc. I haven't follow the details that closely but as I understand it, the cause of the first explosion is unclear but it's been suggested it may have been a built up of gases due to a broken ventilation system, so linking the deaths and disaster simply to the explosions is potentially misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The incident/event was caused by an explosion (cause unknown and could remain unknown), it is your view it could have been toxic gases, lack of oxygen or dehydration (which is WP:OR). The incident/event was an explosive one and the cause of the explosions and the death of the miners is unknown, assuming it was toxic gases, lack of oxygen or dehydration is wrong and not yet proven. Bidgee (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"assuming it was toxic gases, lack of oxygen or dehydration is wrong and not yet proven"...I'm not assuming any such thing and I didn't add any of those potential causes to the article. I was simply pointing out here that they are possibilities, because nothing I've read has stated definitively that the deaths were caused by the "single event" of the explosion (or more correctly, the series of explosions). Whateverblah (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "The explosion resulted in the death of..." necessarily implies causation. It is accurate to use this sentence in a case when an explosion sets off a chain of events which ultimately leads to a person or people dying, even if the actual cause of death is not the explosion itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverblah (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign my post, still learning! Whateverblah (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your still saying the explosion set off a chain of events which lead to their deaths. The fact is, for all we know they may have been dead before the first explosion. Even if they died after the explosion/s, it's possible they would have died in the mine without the explosion/s. In other words, from the info we have at the current time, we can't know for sure the explosions were the cause of deaths, so we shouldn't suggest we do. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there seems to be some confusion here. The event in reference is the Pike River Mine disaster. Not any specific explosion. As I already said, the whole disaster is currently generally treated as one event or disaster because of the interrelation between the series of incidents, one or more of which we currently believe lead to the deaths. (This doesn't mean anyone denies there were multiple incidents which caused the disaster.) To use some losely related examples, the Boxing day earthquake and resulting tsunami is often treated as one event even though it was a series of incidents (earthquake, tsunami hitting multiple dispersed countries) particularly when it comes to discussions of deaths. The same with the September 11 attacks in the US or the 2002 Bali attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The new wording's better, I'd say. I added the "single event" bit to the original, since it previously said "It involved the country's worst loss of life since the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901.", which was clearly wrong (road accidents in NZ have caused thousands of death since 1979, to start with). Grutness...wha? 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rereading the paragraph, it sounded awkward so I've changed it to "The Pike River Mine event ... It also resulted ...".

I don't think anyone with sufficient command of English to be able to understand the normal English wikipedia, when reading the Pike River Mine disaster article, is going to be confused as to thinking we're going to suddenly talk about how the other mining disaster we are comparing this to which occured in 1914 resulted in the countries worst loss of life in a single disaster since 1979. 'It' in this case clear refers to the same thing as was the main point in the previous sentence i.e. the Pike River Mine event/disaster.

It's also silly to refer to it as the Pike River mine event in one sentence when comparing it to one disaster, then refer to it as a series of explosions in the very next sentence when comparing it to another disaster. These aren't different things we're talking about, they're exactly the same thing. If it helps you can reverse the sentences i.e. :

The Pike River Mine event resulted in the country's worst loss of life caused by a single disaster since the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901.[5] It also ranks as New Zealand's worst mining disaster since 43 men died at Ralph's Mine in Huntly in 1914.

Either way, I would say it's obvious to anyone with sufficient command of English to read wikipedia that 'it' refers to the Pike River mine event.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Risk of ignition

This sentence (created today) seems clumsy: "As there may have been a potential ignition source, it was too dangerous for rescuers to enter the mine."

Suggest: "The initial explosion damaged the mine's gas drainage line. This caused a build up of methane gas inside the mine, and the risk of subsequent explosion deterred rescuers from entering the mine." wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 06:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "The initial explosion damaged the mine's gas drainage line, causing a build up of methane gas inside the mine. The risk of subsequent explosion delayed any immediate rescue effort to allow time for proper risk assessment processes and operational planning." Whateverblah (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• The third explanation seems more efficient. Scrayer (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Miners"

Note that, although the news media has been referring by and large to "the miners", technically the victims included 16 miners and 13 contractors. I've made small several changes to the text to reflect this, but please keep an eye on it to make sure that the same confusion doesn't crop up with future edits to the article... Grutness...wha? 00:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is is not possible that the contractors were also miners? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They weren't. See below. Grutness...wha? 02:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The difference in terminology appears to relate to the nature of the miners' employment. Sixteen miners were employed directly by Pike River Mine, the other thirteen were employed through independent contracting companies. See this article [1] for detail of that arrangement. At the end of the day they were all "miners" (ie people who go down a mine) so I don't think the article benefits from distinguishing between the two categories. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A miner isn't someone who goes down a mine — a miner is someone who mines. Just because someone works in a mine doesn't mean that they mine. These were not miners - they were employed in various underground capacities unrelated to the actual mining of coal. John Hale was a builder by trade, for instance, and was contracted as structural supervisors. Zen Drew (building apprentice) and Terry Kitchin (carpenter) were working with him. Peter Rodger was a mechanic. Calling them "miners" simply because they were underground is akin to describing photographic lab technicians as "photographers". Grutness...wha? 02:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I'm still confused at the differing terminology: "miner" describes WHAT someone does, whereas contractor describes HOW they are engaged by the company. Are we to assume that all miners were employees, whereas all other occupations (carpenter, mechanic etc) were contracted rather than employed directly? While I have no problem with the article distinguishing between the two groups, perhaps the use of the two terms needs to be made clearer? Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, it probably does need some further explanation. It seems that quite a number of sources have simply referred to them as being 16 miners and 13 contractors, though. I suppose describing them as 29 mine workers would get around the problem... Grutness...wha? 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not follow the same terminology in the reference that accompanies the information? Format (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because then we'd be swapping between several different terminologies within the article, which wouldd be even more confusing (some sources refer to them one way, others refer to them another). On reflection, perhaps the best solution would be to use one term, e.g., "miners", throughout, but add a footnote to the first usage explaining that the 29 men included workers in various trades but were referred to by much of the meedia as miners. Grutness...wha? 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to use the term "miners" for convenience. 2010 Copiapó mining accident does this too. I would suspect anyone interested enough to read through the article would probably realise that a mine features drivers and mechanics, too. But constant reiteration of their exact jobs isn't really key to the article. "Miners" essentially becomes shorthand for "the people in the mine at the time, who were all working there" and people would realise this. Like, an aircrash article might say "20 crew members" died; it does not need to explain that there was one purser, one head flight attendant, one flight engineer, one captain... each time the "20 crew" are described. Format (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a parallel - flight attendants etc are all technically part of the crew, whereas some of the people down the mine weren't technically miners. It's more akin to the article saying that 20 pilots died. But as I said, a footnote on the first usage would simplify things. Grutness...wha? 21:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are grounds for being dogmatic about exactly who is or is not a miner. Paul W Thrush's Dictionary of Mining, MIneral and Related Terms (US Bureau of Mines 1968) is probably the most comprehensive glossary on the subject, and it gives nearly a column of meanings for the word "miner". These include "one engaged in the business or occupation of getting ore, coal, precious substances or other natural substances out of the earth", "includes all classes and laborers who work in a mine whether digging coal, timbering, or making places safe" and "loosely used to designate all underground employees". There are other more restrictive definitions given as well. The distinction between employee and contractor is also an artificial one. Traditionally, most of the workers in Cornish mines were not employees of the company, but private contractors who were paid an agreed proportion of the value of metal they raised. However, there is no question that these people were miners. In the modern era of opencut mines, mechanisation, and out-sourcing, the distinctions between underground and surface work, and between employee and contractor, have become meaningless. It has become common practice to describe everyone in the industry - even a company director - as a miner. In the present usage of the word, I would not hesitate to describe everyone in the Pike River mine as a miner. Peter Bell (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You might not, but others would, including many people in the mining industry. This is why some sources, including those relating to the proposed official inquiry, make the distinction clear that there were 16 miners and 13 contractors. But this is all getting us further and further from the suggestion I made which would effectively address the problem, and which so far no-one seems to have seen fit to comment on. Is there anything wrong at all with the idea of referring to them using one simple term, even if it is the term miners, but adding a footnote on the first usage explaining who these people were? Surely it's the most sensible solution, unless someone can come up with a better one which explains the reason why different website sources refer to the people in two completely different ways? Grutness...wha? 07:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'presumed deceased' ... ?

I believe the line: Two miners escaped with moderate injuries on the day of the explosion and 29 others are presumed deceased Is contentious, to say the least. Whilst it is sourced (to a canadian website) there are equally a large number of quotes, as recent as this morning, from rescuers explaining that the miners still may be alive (unlikely as this may be). See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10689670 "The other thing that sustains my hope is that we still have a compressed air line going underground. We don't know where it goes to." Any objections to changing this to something such as: "Two miners escaped with moderate injuries on the day of the explosion and 29 others are missing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.228.108 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've reverted the intro to the previous one that does not presume they are alive or dead. Mattlore (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Thanks for attending to it. We've got to be really careful here, as WP:BLP applies and there are some families out there that don't want to read about their loved ones being presumed anything if that isn't necessarily true. Schwede66 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The presumption of death seems to have crept in again: "Following a second explosion on 24 November at 2:37 pm, the 29 remaining men are believed to be dead". I don't think anyone should be "presumed dead" until a body is recovered. Biscuittin (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are presumed dead. To state otherwise would be a distortion of the current position [2]. Bodies may never be recovered. WWGB (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the newspaper the consensus among the experts was that they all died in the first explosion and that this was their belief from day one. In other words they all were and still are presumed dead. WWGB is correct. It is believed to be too dangerous to retrieve the bodies and it is likely they will never be recovered. Wayne (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone would escape alive from the Chilean mine but I was proved wrong. Biscuittin (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chile was the collapse of a copper mine, this was a coal explosion. "When coal explodes death is the only realistic outcome" and "If a [coal] mine explodes, the question is not 'can we rescure them?' it is 'can we get the bodies out?'" were comments by the rescue team. On November 24 Peter Whittall told the miners families "We knew on Friday [Nov 19] that there was no hope they were alive".Wayne (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning of this section, the presumption of death was described as "contentious, to say the least". We knew from the start that there had been an explosion, so why has it now become uncontentious? Biscuittin (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has followed the mainstream media in its description of whether the people in the mine were assumed to be alive or dead. It may well be, in retrospect, that the mainstream media were overly optimistic in the time between the first and second explosions. To some extent, this may be because the full force of the first explosion was not well known. However, at this point I doubt that are any reliable sources which assert that there is any reasonable chances that these people are still alive.-gadfium 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll have to wait and see whether the "reliable sources" are wrong. Biscuittin (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the presumption of death should actually be excluded on the the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" (see Wikipedia:SPECULATION). It is still speculation, even if it is speculation by a "reliable source". Biscuittin (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added "by police" to the article to make it clear who is doing the speculation. Biscuittin (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

reactions

why were the previous intl reaction removed? such as the one from Chile offering help?Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fragmented article

Details of the recovery operation have become fragmented over several sections. I could try to tackle this but it would be better done by somebody local who knows more about it than I do. Biscuittin (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

page move

to Pike River Mine accident in line with other such names as in the copiapo one earlier this year. And that disaster is sensationalising.Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Copiapo was an accident rather than a disaster because no-one died. Standard naming seems to be that "disaster" is used where there are deaths. Note that this page was at Pike River Mine accident initially, and was moved to its current name when it became clear that the mine workers had died. Grutness...wha? 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think thats silly, its still an accident, but i guess were not going to move it all.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't silly, the blasts at the mine not only killed 29 works but it also caused significant damage to the mine which is still burning. Calling it a disaster is not sensationalising. Bidgee (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Habitat description of mine

This link gives an excellent account of mine from habitat perspective. http://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/?p=22052 —F^red11⁴ 02:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Explosion causes

Just passing through and was wondering what caused the explosions in the first place. After a quick scan I can't find an explanation anywhere. Is what might cause an explosion in a coal mine presumed to be common knowledge? Or is it there somewhere and I missed it?--Jeff79 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that this aspect is being neglected. It seems fairly important to me.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a bit about this. --Avenue (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Commemorations?

I added a couple of lines about the memorial wheel at the Blackball Museum of Working Class History and an event held there in 2014. I put this in the 'Aftermath' section, but note that it might be more appropriate to create a specific section for memorial/commemoration events? There will likely be further news coverage relating to the memorials relating to the disaster, especially as we are coming up to the 10th anniversary now? DrThneed (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons category

I've uploaded some photos and made a category; see the link in the left sidebar when you view the article. Schwede66 08:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Terminology used

I appreciate that this is a much wider issue than just with this article, but I find the use the term "accident" in relation to Pike River problematic at best. There has been heaps of discussion over the years that management knew that the mine was operated in an unsafe way. I appreciate that this hasn't resulted in any convictions (yet). The definition of accident is "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause". For an explosion to happen when the mine produced high methane levels doesn't meet that definition and I'd argue that the term "accident", which implies that it was nobody's fault, is violating WP:NPOV. Maybe "incident" or simply "explosion" are better terms. What do others think? Schwede66 01:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be edited to remove the word "accident". Rewriting to use "explosion" in place of "accident" seems appropriate. It is worth looking at the article Accident, as another interesting point of reference. However, as you say it is wider issue. There are multiple diverse definitions, and the term "accident" has been frequently used where human and organisational factors and on-going negligence or other failings are a major contributory cause of a disaster, and the potential consequences were clearly foreseeable. The term "accident" has been used in the articles Three Mile Island accident, and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster as two examples.Marshelec (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)