Talk:2015 East Village gas explosion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources for RS and expansion

- Becksguy (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these sources should be added in the article; however, some of the higher numbered sources may be unreliable because they're blogs. – Epic Genius (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a lot of these sources duplicate each other. – Epic Genius (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's really not necessary to have numerous sources which all say the same thing - and Epicgenius is right, the blogs are not reliable sources. BMK (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much aware that blogs are not RS; this is not a curated list, rather it's essentially a google dump of everything even remotely related to the explosion, including the kitchen sink and blogs, for handy reference and I got too tired to change the header or clean up the list for dups and relevance. It's true that some of the references have essentially the same content, but if they are separate independent reliable sources, they are useful. - Becksguy (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential BLP violations

I am removing the names of those reportedly the targets of a criminal investigation arising from this explosion and resultant fire. The news sources are two NYC tabloids, one of which in my opinion is a sensationalist and a low quality source, and the articles quote unnamed police sources for the allegations. If this had been reported in a high quality source, such as the NYT or WSJ, or the district attorney issued a statement, there would be no problem with the content. That there is an investigation is well and reliably documented, only naming the potential targets is problematic. Removing per WP:BLPVIO, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Please do not reinsert without posting at WP:BLPN. Thank you. - Becksguy (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them. These names have been widely reported, and we are doing nothing except reporting what reliable sources say. BLP does no t require us to say nothing negative at all about living persons -- we do it all that time, we just have to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. BMK (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, although the NY Daily News and NY Post are published in tabloid form, they are not "tabloids" in the sense of The National Enquirer or the Daily Mail in London - the size of the publication doesn't determine whether it is a reliable source or not. The Daily News is a reliable source 99% of the time, and the Post is generally only unreliable when it comes to American politics, and even then it's not like it's the Washington Times (which is totally unreliable because its news pages are completely subverted to its editorial stance, but which is not a tabloid.) BMK (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. They are not BLP violations because they are sourced by many other, reliable sources. Plus, the landlord's name is mentioned in the WSJ here. BLP only requires the neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research guidelines to be followed. Epic Genius (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and extraneous redundancy

I have removed redundancy, a run-on sentence, and a poorly phrased quote from the following text added to the article:

On February 11, 2016, Cyrus Vance, Jr., the District Attorney for New York County (Manhattan) announced the indictment and arrest of five people in connection with the explosion, including a building owner and her son; a plumber who used his city license to allow others to do work for him; the unlicensed plumber who did the work; and a contractor. The charges included manslaughter and negligent homicide. According to media reports, the indictments claim that the explosion was the result of an illegal scheme to tap a legal gas line serving the ground-floor restaurant to provide gas service to the renovated apartments on the floors above. which on average rented for $6,000 a month. Although lawyers for the indicted people were not immediately available for comment after the announcement of the indictments and arrests, earlier, a lawyer for the building owner had blamed Con Edison for the blast, saying that "They should have shut off the main valve."

It was changed to (changes marked in italic):

On February 11, 2016, Cyrus Vance, Jr., the District Attorney for New York County (Manhattan), announced the indictment and arrest of five people in connection with the explosion, including Hrynenko and Kukic; a plumber who used his city license to allow others to do work for him; the unlicensed plumber who did the work; and a contractor. The charges included manslaughter and negligent homicide. According to media reports, the indictments say that the explosion was the result of an illegal scheme to tap a legal gas line into the building, which served the ground-floor restaurant, in order to provide gas service to the renovated apartments on the floors above, which rented for an average of $6,000 a month. Although lawyers for the indicted were not immediately available for comment after the announcement of the indictments and arrests, earlier, a lawyer for the building owner stated that Con Edison "should have shut off the main valve" to prevent the blast.

Not sure why this was reverted, but it definitely wasn't "better before." epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was, and still is. BMK (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your namiing of the names involved is a BLP violation, no matter how many sources report them, because all the sources derive from the indictments, which are only claims made by the state, and have not yet been proven in a court of law. Again, you should actually read WP:BLP and try to understand what it says there, as you clearly do not. Do it again and I'll bring the issue to the BLP board. BMK (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The names were already in the article. So bring it to the BLP board, I don't care. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not there as being indicted, a much more serious matter. And perhaps, if you're truly interested in writing for an encyclopedia, you should care about following its policies, especially ones which have been laid down by the WMF. BMK (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, if you want to bring someone to a noticeboard for a BLP violation, I am not your guy. epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 East Village gas explosion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]