# Talk:Qinghe Special Steel Corporation disaster

Good addition, a few links, may help reduce the load on the existing sources,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170087 
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/18/china.steel/index.html
http://search.uk.reuters.com/rsearch/rcomSearch.do?blob=Qinghe%20&WTmodLoc=ussrch-top-quote 
feel free to use or ignore them. --Drappel 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those - I will definatly make use of them! Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I've completed the review of this article and am pleased to pass this article as I believe it meets the Good Article Criteria.
The article is written well and covers the topic thoroughly. References are used everywhere that is appropriate, and the image used has a fair use rationale. I am satisfied that this article is written from a Neutral Point of View. It contains an impressive amount of information on such an event. I believe the editors have done excellent work to bring the article up to this standard considering the incident was just five months ago. 
Thanks for all the hard work on this article, and congratulations on its promotion to good article status. Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, @David_Gerard!  I have tentatively reverted one of your automated/scripted/blanket The Epoch Times removals of information on this event, pertaining to WP:RSCONTEXT.  Though The Epoch Times has recently been deprecated, it seems as though, in this instance, the source use  would fall under "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" in WP:DEPS, as it is a highly localized/context citation about a particular incident that would be difficult to find, if at all, in other English-language publications. Top5a (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an information and guidance page, not a policy page where you can go looking for loopholes. It's a deprecated source. Non-English-language sources are perfectly acceptable in English Wikipedia, so it's not in any way clear that that bit of WP:DEPS is even based in policy or practice. Is there a source in any language for the claims? - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi!  Hmm, >where you can go looking for loopholes
I am sure by your status that you are familiar with WP:AGF.  I am not looking for loopholes (operative word being "tentatively"); your removal rather seemed to be something caught up in your mass removals (btw was there an agreement on performing those, anyway?  as far as I can recall, source deprecation is specifically not a call for scripting mass removal/blacklisting) within a GA article which already had a bit of a discussion on the topic here.
This same citation actually appears to be in the rev history, although there is not any substantive talk on it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qinghe_Special_Steel_Corporation_disaster&diff=1026990435&oldid=984080854&diffmode=source
I did check the RfC on The Epoch Times, to which I agree with your position therein that it is generally a propaganda source, especially in recent years.  Yet, others also mentioned that, especially for older articles (this citation being from 2007) and more niche/region-specific topics, recently deprecated sources can still add unique value to articles, again wrt WP:RSCONTEXT.
As for >Is there a source in any language for the claims?
Just took a quick gander, and there are citations in Mandarin on sites such as Tencent News, Sina, Sohu, amongst others at the time all quoting the operator and other personell.  Here's a Tencent/QQ one, for example https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20210613a04qsc00
I'll leave it up to you to decide (feel free to re-remove the source), but please WP:AGF in the future.  I think you can probably see now how from my perspective it appeared as though your mass removals caught up some unnecessary removals in the crossfire, so to speak.  Cheers! Top5a (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
If we can use the non-English sources then that's excellent.
scripting mass removal/blacklisting This is a specific accusation of malfeasance, and I would ask you to back it up or withdraw it, because it's false. So much for AGF.
Looking at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources I see nothing about English-language sources. So that's a loophole that didn't actually exist in the document you cited.
I must note that Epoch Times has been deprecated for years, and most of the links to it had a "deprecated source" tag next to them for that time. I'm reasonably confident that two years of having the tag and nothing happening is probably enough to assume they're not going to be replaced organically and just remove them - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Were the 4 arrested ever tried and convicted? If so what was their punishment? PhilUK (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The metal is described as coming directly from a blast furnace. In that case it would be pig iron, not steel, which would have received additional processing to remove impurities like carbon, silicon, and manganese. The properties and uses of the two materials are quite different. 64.7.42.170 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. The source states only "molten metal", not steel, so I'll change it to correspond with what was originally written. Better to be less specific in this instance. Reconrabbit 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Rereading the sources - even if it was pig iron, every interview and report states that it was "molten steel", so we can't write that it was pig iron. If the fact that it was pig iron and not steel was at all relevant to the incident it probably would have been brought up. Reconrabbit 14:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)