Talk:Sago Mine disaster

message: Should we clean up this discussion page? It's incredibly long and seems to, for the most part, contain information which is no longer useful. Tyrel Haveman 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Clean-Up?

message: http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT8.HTM
Since this has indeed "claim[ed] more than five lives", incident is indeed technically wrong.
How many moves are we up to now?
-- Dandelions 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, I think "Daniel Case", above, is working on reverting things to Sago Mine Disaster. Crunch 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the info in the link, I agree that "Disaster" is the correct term. Does anyone else have a valid source that says another term would be better? Joe McCullough | (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident? Not quite.

message: Whoever renamed this page from Sago Mine Accident to Sago Mine Tradgedy [sic], you want to at least spell Tragedy correctly? Crunch 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you. I posted the same comment at the same time you did. :) Williamnilly 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: While people are futzing around with the title, maybe we could settle on "Sago Mine Disaster" which seems consistent with similar articles on Wikipedia. Crunch 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be fixed soon, as the article is currently on the main page and redirects to a redirect page, which redirects to the incorrectly spelled "Tradgedy" page. I would move it to the correctly named page, but my account is too new and I am unable. Peter Gawtry 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spell Tragedy Correctly?

message: This word seems POV (how is this a disaster but not, say, September 11 or last year's tsunami), and I think it should be changed to "accident". I realize that all other articles on mine accidents end in "disaster", and I've suggested changing them at WP:RM, but this article is on the front page and so I think it needs expedited action. Also note that mining accident is at "accident". ~~ N (t/c) 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disaster"

message: "It may be the state's worst mining disaster since three workers were killed in 2003 while drilling an air shaft near Cameron."
Maybe I'm missing something, but since there are 13 miners involved here, wouldn't it potentially be worse than the 2003 incident, meaning you'd have to go back to some earlier incident? Siradia 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "is". This is false if there have been deadly mine accidents in the intervening time, but I think that's more likely to be false than true. Of course, we'll have to find an earlier event if more than 3 people die (Gods forbid). ~~ N (t/c) 22:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst Since 2003?

message: Both images appear to be copyvios; they are AP photos taken from the Fox News web site (images #5 and #9 in the photo essay at that link). Both have been duly reported. Aaron 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyvios 

message: In line with naming conventions this page should be moved to Sago Mine accident or more specifically 2006 Sago Mine accident.--nixie 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask about the accident caps but I don't see the year as mattering too much. gren グレン 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: 01:01, January 4, 2006 Desk Jockey (rv: as of 237 EST, 12 are alive and 1 is dead; previous two edits are incorrect)
????
I'm watching CNN TV and they've interviewed 3 people who heard directly from the CEO of the mining company that only one lived.
- Tyrel
Sorry, the webpages hadn't updated yet. I was wrong.
Desk Jockey 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  only 1 alive 

message: I tried to type this live when watching CNN, press conf from Ben Hatfield, President of Intl Coal Group:
"... mine accident. Around 11:45pm on Tuesday evening, rescue teams succeeded in... the 12 remaining minors.... initial reports indicated multiple survivors... miscommunication... only survivor... Randal McCloy .. Our hearts go out to the families of .... This is certainly not the outcome we had hoped for and prayed for."
When asked about the initial numbers, "There was no such word from the company itself.... that information spread like wildfire, but it was bad information."
"I think we can confirm with certainty that the miners survived for some time."
CO levels was "in the 300 to 400 range when our rescue teams reached the location".
With regards to the "I have no idea who made that announcement, but it was not an announcement that Intl Goal Group had authorized."
"Their injuries seem to be related to the carbon monoxide poisoning."
They were all (12) in one place.
Other self notes: A surgion at the hospital had mentioned in an earlier phone interview with CNN that Mr. McCloy did NOT have elevated carbon monoxide levels. This is very interesting, since they were all in the same place.. how did only 11 of them suffer from carbon monoxide?  -- Tyrel
AP and Reuters did NOT directly report that 12 were alive, they attributed that info to the families. 140.247.243.128 08:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that back. They were attributing the info to families, but they were more or less presenting it as fact. 140.247.237.54 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest press conf (3:10am EST) 

message: I think a lot of these times are not quite accurate, especially the times when the various reports were coming in.Bwilder1998 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: times are being spoken by hatfield on CNN now appzter 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times 

message: Some one may want to post the front covers of this morning's USA Today, New York Post and New York Daily News. All three covers have giant "They're alive!"-style headlines. I'd post them myself, but due to an earlier angry response from someone regarding me tagging earlier images on the page as copyvios, I think there's a risk of an edit war starting if I'm the one that uploads and posts the images. Also, from what little I've seen of this thus far (I've only been awake about twenty minutes as I type this), I have to say the live news coverage has a major league CYA aspect to it. Is anyone else getting the feeling that it's someone in the news media that's at least partially responsible (and perhaps largely responsible) for this "information" spreading like wildfile amongst the miners' families in the the rescue camp? If so, I think this angle deserves its own section. But I'd like some consenus before I go down that path. --Aaron 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. I added a paragraph about Bill Hemmer's on-air comments to make it more relevant, and changed the title to better note that it's a mix of news media conduct and misinformation spreading amongst others. But it needs to be separated into two sections I think. --Aaron 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but what you did was a good start. Thanks... Bwilder1998 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good idea to me. I have to get ready to start my day anyway, so I won't be able to make any more edits to the article for a number of hours. Let's see how it shakes out. --Aaron 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News media effects / news media causes? 

message: I'm confused.  How is the McClure incident similar to the Sago Mine Accident?  I'm not quite following how this rated a "See Also" tag.
--Silverhand 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jessica McClure

message: Would an admin please lock this page from page moves for the time being to prevent further confusion? Thanks. Jibbajabba 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only once a decent title is chosen. At present, it's capitalization is wrong and it rules on this being a disaster. -Splashtalk 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it should be called, but while we try to make a decision, the main page link should be frozen to point to one place so inexperienced users don't take it upon themselves. Jibbajabba 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as fairly obvious to call it 2005 Sago Mine incident, in the same vein as 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire. And I must disagree with Freakofnurture's note at the top about having to go to RfM. For a page as busy as this, it can be decided here. -Splashtalk 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that 12 fatalaties are confirmed by ICG, this meets the requirements for a 'disaster' under MSHA guidelines. DolphinCompSci 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we should simply cite that fact in the article, rather than adopting one partcular source's (sligtly hazy) definition in the title. Call it something neutral in the title, and expand upon who calls/called it what in the text, where references can be given. -Splashtalk 17:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please lock moves. This is getting a little out of hand. Bwilder1998 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you know it was an accident? -Splashtalk 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the entire article is based on other sources, and not conspiracy theories, it seems safe to base the title on what's been reported. ed g2s • talk 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems safer still to avoid deciding it was one thing or another until that is confirmed. What is the particular objection to the entirely neutral "incident" term? Drama? We don't need any.-Splashtalk 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'incident' is generally-speaking a weasel word and smells of downplaying, somewhat euphemistic. Morwen - Talk 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "weasel" you mean "neutral", then yes. If by weasel, you mean deliberately obfuscatory, then no. It's not a euphemism for "accident" since noone knows whether it was an accident or what yet (AGF aside...) and I'm still inclined to think that it could yet become a "scandal" or somesuch given what's happening. However, if people feel the level of drama conveyed by the title is more appropriate with "disaster" (per WP:DRAMA, presumably) then I don't actually care all that much, since there is at least a source that reckons it probably is, althought it calls it a "historical" definition. -Splashtalk 18:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And not only is "incident" weaselly here, it has come out here in the discussion above that none other than the MSHA itself refers to any accident that costs more than five lives as a mining disaster. What about that can't some people understand? It is an official term used  by the appropriate agency of the United States Government. It can and should be used here. Daniel Case 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain how it is weaselly, please, without just saying it isn't dramatic enough. (And you'll sound a lot better if you don't imply stupidity on the part of other editors. There's really no need.) -Splashtalk 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't need to explain anything. I am not the one who said anything about it being dramatic or not. My argument is simply that it is official government policy to refer to any mining accident that claims five or more lives as a mining disaster. All the other articles in the mining disaster category follow this nomenclature. It is used in the media and by the industry. By following official policy and accepted usage, the use of "disaster" does not imply fault on anyone's part. And the loss of twelve lives, whatever the cause, is a disaster. Daniel Case 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. I can accept this name for the page (I created it originally, after all). Again, it is an official mining disaster now. Let us leave it there. Daniel Case 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No it isn't protected, and it's a touch odd for you to move it to your preferred title under those same conditions. -Splashtalk 18:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? It says right above what I wrote that it is move protected. And I didn't do it ... I'm not an admin. Not yet, anwyay. Daniel Case 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Count the indent. I wasn't replying to you. -Splashtalk 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem, but the protecting admin said nothing about it being his preferred title ... that was me. Daniel Case 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He moved it and then protected it. It's much more common practise (for obvious reasons) to simply apply protection on the then-current version and leave the discussion to thrash it out. Protecting after moving it to a title he chose was the wrong way to do it. -Splashtalk 18:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He says nothing about him preferring the title personally. He just said it seems to be the status quo (and he's right, as you are about the only one arguing for "incident"). Strikes me as not the best of faith. Daniel Case 18:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No argument here. But what's done is done, and it's protected now. Might as well move on. --Aaron 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly what I was saying all along. A shame that it took a protect to win the argument (Sort of an indirect way, it seems, of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Daniel Case 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, maybe just some good lessons for us all for next time -- though hopefully under less sad circumstances.  Sorry again if I'm sounding preachy. Crunch 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: Since no Ben Hatfield article exists (and therefore, no picture), I figured I'd get one of him talking at his press conference.  For now, feel free to use :Image:HatfieldSago.JPG if/when providing information about Hatfield/Int'l. Coal Group's response to the disaster. appzter 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatfield Picture 

message: Radios are reporting that some relatives already want to start frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars damages over the miscommunication. Could someone extend the article to cover this topic? Anything like this is considered absurd and outrageous in most places outside the USA. 195.70.32.136 09:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reports that the families want to sue the mine company because of the mine's dangerous conditions. This does not seem frivolous and in any case should be reported factually, if and when lawsuits are filed.  I don't think media reports about angry families saying they're going to sue about the miscommunication fits in this article if such lawsuits come to pass.  Crunch 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Crunch.  The number of deficiencies reported by the state and federal mining regulators for the Sago mine were a tragedy waiting to happen.  ICG classified them as "minor", but what people fail to realize is that they an indication of a mine falling apart when taken together.  So, unlike certain other lawsuits, I certainly do not see an issue with this one being filed.--Silverhand 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigous States of America 

message: Someone should definitely edit that biased section referring to the 'corporate fatcats', etc.
:Somebody has gone ahead and done so, removing the entire para which I think is fine. I've removed the NPOV template since I think that was the reason it was added. Sdedeo (tips) 16:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section 

message: Is it necessary to have an entire section named Survivor that just lists Randal L. McCloy, Jr and his age?  I understand the desire to be parallel to the Victims list, but details of McCloy surviving, his rescue and his recovery are included throughout the entire article.  The Victims section is the only place where the victims names and ages documented. I think it's a different thing and I think the Survivor section is quite uncessary. Crunch 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this has now been merged with the Victims section. This seems to be a good solution. Crunch 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivor section necessary?

message: A photo of the note the miners wrote can be found here .  The note should get mentioned in the article. Also, the media is reporting that it says, among other things, "I just went to sleep". 
As you can see in the picture, the writing isn't very clear (perhaps due to low oxygen, other toxins, and maybe it was written in total darkness; I don't know). If you ask me, it says "I just want to sleep". That makes a more-logical sentence but also makes for a less-peaceful story. I'd guess that they weren't able to think clearly at that point, so an illogical sentence like "I just went to sleep" is understandable, but it looks to me like these countless articles are jumping to conclusions. It says "I weet to sleep" as much as it says "I want to sleep" or "I went to sleep". —BenFrantzDale 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly a word between "I" and "went," though.  Went/Weet/Want is in dispute, I guess, but "just" is there. - Hbdragon88 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: I'm not sure that the large chemical formula in the Explosion section adds anything useful.  It's probably not easily understandable by most readers and the phenomenon it's trying to illustrate might better be explained in text. Crunch 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Ajdz 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed Crunch 16:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical formula

message: Is giving undue weight to Bush admin enemies and opinions. MSHA has answered some of these claims on the Web site and these should be added...
:Sure. Can you provide a source for the MSHA responses? Sdedeo (tips) 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've found the source for MSHA responses , and I'll add it in soon (next few hours.) Sdedeo (tips) 22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Criticism 

message: Hi all. The intro to the article is very long. I think it should be about two paragraphs. Much of the info is repeated in later sections. In general, the intro should give the bare facts and outline; the rest should appear under later subheadings. Sdedeo (tips) 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: slimming intro

message: Representative Capito is from the Buchannon area. Wouldn't say exactly that she only came by for a photo opportunity.
:Argh, people keep putting it in. I took it out again. If you see it come back in, do remove it yourself, I think it's pretty clear that its unsourced and completely POV. Sdedeo (tips) 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "photo op" comment

message: When reversing an edit, please be careful when reverting to an earlier version that you don't also throw out good changes. Some one correctly reverted the change of the mine's location from Sago back to Tallmansville, but in the process also reverted a typo correction and one editor's reworking which was probably fine. Crunch 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be careful with Revert

message: I started working on consolidating and cleaning up this article, now that the story has stabilzied somewhat. The goals are:
#Make the intro much shorter and more concise.
#Move/merge info from the intro to the relevant parts in sections below
#Clean up all of the other sections, particularly delete redundant informaton. For example, there is informaiton about the mine's ownership in two places. Is this necessary?
#When possible, try to keep the story chronological:  Explosion, Rescue efforts, Finding miners (dead? alive? media problems?), Investigation, Funerals, etc.  -- 
I hope others are still interested in working on this article. -- Crunch 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, not exactly the direction I was hoping for.  It's gotten more cluttered. and longer.  I think adding content that says, "Reporter X in newspaper Y said Z" is uncessary.  It's better to say "This happened" and put the reporter's citation in the reference section.  For example, if we're talking about when the rescue effort began, talk about when the rescue began.  Then later in the Investigation section, you can talk about conflicting theories about why the rescue was delaying with footnotes citing the sources. Every minute piece of information related to the Sago Mine Disaster does not have to be in this article. Crunch 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidating and Cleanup

message: Considering the edit history, i'll leave this to someone else to fix.
There is a serious error in the section:
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee government investigation
Perhaps because of all the moves, the section leaves an entirely wrong impression.
The names of Senators are listed, in connection with signing a letter.
Then a couple of paras are quoted, as if they were in the letter signed.
Then there is the link to the PDF of the letter.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/1-10-06%20Enzi-Kennedy%20Ltr.pdf
Here is the problem: the letter doesn't contain those paragraphs. 
Those paragraphs come from a press release issued the next day.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/pr011106.html
Good work, everyone, it is great to see such a comprehensive overview!
:Hope this fixes it.  Also posted links to testimony.  Didn't have time to print out and summarize yet, as pdf files.  Will do, however.  Evidently Arlen Spector is giving them hell
See http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006012332
--Beth Wellington 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs fixing as soon as possible 

message: Can we remove the "2006" from the article title? No need to specify the year when there's only one, e.g., Oklahoma City bombing. Coffee 04:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I don't know if it's possible to see the history but this current title came about after a bit of a bit of a tussle in which the title went quickly from Sago mine accident to Sago mine tragedy to Sago mine disaster and back again. After it was finally settled on disaster, someone tacked on the year, which they may argue will be necessary if there is another disaster at the Sago mine in the future but I think is cumbersome now. I think we can go ahead and rename. If you do it, please move the this page, as well. It's an option. Crunch 11:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, done. Coffee 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This article is a mess, with redundant statements being made again and again (for example, the conflicting reports on the body count). --70.108.56.178 10:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: On CO (Carbon Monoxide):"200 parts per million is the maximum considered safe" "the 400 parts per million tolerance of the human body" Which is the right one, 400 or 200 ppm? get the facts constitant or don't use them people.
--Firehawk1717 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitent Parts Per Million, please 

message: A look at the Dead external links page shows no less than thirteen dead links (Error 404) in this article. Someone familiar with the subject needs to go through with a chainsaw and do some pruning. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: I am proposing that we merge the article for Randal McCloy into this article.  When the latter article was proposed for deletion over a year and a half ago, a number of the arguments for keeping it were based upon predictions that did not come true, that McCloy would "most likely will create more headline news" and "he could become more important in the near future" and "McCloy's testimony will be singularly important and historians from the far future will fairly need to look up his background more than many other people with accepted biographies in Wikipedia"; many others, meanwhile, already foresaw the article being merged back into the article on the mine disaster.
Well, a year and a half later, McCloy's only claim to encyclopedic notability is still that he survived the mine disaster -- which means that he has no encyclopedic notability apart from the mine disaster.  According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.  Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy."  This pair of articles seems to have proved that point:  The article on McCloy is almost wholly about his process of rehabilitation, which despite its significance to the people involved is not encyclopedically notable (do we have articles on the rehabilitation of the victims of non-notable car crashes?)  Meanwhile, a fact which was extremely significant to the disaster has yet to find its way into the article on the disaster -- why?  Because the fact ("In late April 2006, McCloy revealed that four of the air packs failed in the tragedy.") was added to the article on McCloy, where apparently no one noticed it, or if they did, failed to realize that it had not made its way into the article on the disaster.  (It is unsourced in the other article but it should be easy enough to fix that.)  A merge is the right thing to do. -- 192.250.34.161 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposed

message: So folks, this event occured roughly a year and a half ago. I opted to comment here due to a comment (at the time of writing) at the article dealing with the hot potato of Old lady farts, driver loose control and crash at Glasgow Airport (OMG OMG!!!) (to be taken lightly). I used to be an active editor, but lost interest, mostly due to the internal politics going on around here and partly due to the skewed imprints "newsworthy" (own emphasis naturally) events in history leave here.
My question is, is there an editor to be found here that would be willing to conclude that yes, this incident was indeed notable as it took place in a time and in a nation that one would expect to have done away with risk factors etc. in order to that such an event should not be able to take place at all; yet be willing to cut/and or slim the text as to not give it undue weight (or perhaps someone with knowledge of such matters could go on about and expand for example Millfield Mine disaster, Almy mine, 1909 Cherry Mine disaster etc.
I doubt there are people to be found that are willing to cut material from such articles, despite that after all such events as this have not left that deep marks in history. As a whole, active editors at wikipedia might benefit from reading essays such as WP:RECENTISM and bit more measure of self-restraint when it comes to covering the world around them. Not meaning to to step on anyone's toes, happy editing folks, 85.131.16.162 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. -Pgan002 (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post [[WP:RECENTISM|'recentism']]

message: I strongly recommend removing all of the legislative text. It's extensive unnecessary information that should appear as a recommended link. Or at least, let the article simply mention federal legislation was inspired by the event, but don't include that entire text! 66.218.46.140 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Legislation Cleanup 

message: :Image:Lynetteroby.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lynetteroby.jpg

message: :Image:Nytimes sago mine2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nytimes sago mine2.gif

message: I am removing the claim of divine retribution from the article on the grounds that pretty much anything the Westboro Baptist Church says is automatically WP:FRINGE. Andrew (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westboro Baptist Church 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sago Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615223158/http://www.andrewsullivan.com:80/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2006_01_01_dish_archive.html to http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2006_01_01_dish_archive.html#113639674057603002
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sago Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707151824/http://money.aol.com/news/articles?id=n20060103140209990009&cid=1222 to http://money.aol.com/news/articles?id=n20060103140209990009&cid=1222
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sago Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080613141942/http://www.wvgazette.com:80/section/Series/The+Sago+%3CBR%3EMine+Disaster/2007032118 to http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Series/The+Sago+%3CBR%3EMine+Disaster/2007032118
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sago Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvgazette.com:80/section/Series/The
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060125170819/http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/1-10-06%20Enzi-Kennedy%20Ltr.pdf to http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/1-10-06%20Enzi-Kennedy%20Ltr.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326105013/http://www.seattlepi.com/frontpage/seattle_pima1x220060104.pdf to http://www.seattlepi.com/frontpage/seattle_pima1x220060104.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Sago Mine disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Series/The+Sago+%3CBR%3EMine+Disaster/2007032118
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716111843/http://www.wju.edu/ to http://www.wju.edu/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives%2F2006_01_01_dish_archive.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews%2F2006%2F01%2F07%2Fbuild%2Fnation%2F25-bush-mines.inc
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/02/mine.explosion/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023935/http://wvoter-owned.org/news/2006/01_09.html to http://www.wvoter-owned.org/news/2006/01_09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IF anyone is actually interested, has anyone thought to add the name of the mine this happened in? It does make a difference. Since the whole world likes to believe we just show up to a hole in the earth and shovel the black rock, you might want to add the actual mine name.....At Sago, at the abandoned site, is the Grand Badger Mine No 1.......by the Badger Coal Company...does anyone here know?Coal town guy (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mine Name