Talk:East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment

Journalist arrested at press conference on Feb. 8, 2023

A NewsNation journalist was arrested after a press conference started on Feb. 8, 2023

Article below NewsNation reporter arrested at Ohio governor's news conference — NewsNation https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/newsnation-reporter-arrested-ohio-news-conference/;

Sroth0616 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants its own section, but I'd definitely be open to "media reaction and public aftermath" section that devotes a paragraph to this. EytanMelech (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't know who created the section and I agree with you which is why I made this in the talk page. Sroth0616 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried removing it, but it came back. I support removing it. This could have happened in the vicinity of any press conference, after any event, and BLPCRIME advises against going heavy on allegations against ordinary people. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it should be included in the wiki however, I don't where which is why added a comment in the Talk page. Sroth0616 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Its own article, if anywhere, though it really isn't encyclopedic. People get arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct every day in every state. Most of the time, like this time, they're just Average Joe and sometimes, like this time, they get a day or two of passing mention/Internet fame. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Sroth0616 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They are using this edit to scrub any mention of this article from Facebook. 2603:7081:5200:1A07:A8DC:5526:51DA:A109 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Who’s they? Not like it really matters. Sroth0616 (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It might be easier to create an article on the guy, if he's done even one other thing of note. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This also makes sense. Again, thanks for explaining. Sroth0616 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're still welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

According to his bio he's an emmy-nominated, award winning journalist. The story of his arrest has been run in conjunction with the train derailing on every major news platform, but now this edit has been used on platforms like facebook to scrub any mention of the Ohio disaster if they too reference this arrest.

I'm not a wiki editor, but I think that this arrest drastically alters the perception of the incident, with the charges being dropped, and from the evidence available from the bodycam its clear that the arrest and the incident are connected, and I humbly ask that you return the section on the arrested journalist.

Thank you 2603:7081:5200:1A07:A8DC:5526:51DA:A109 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gaslight you, but he doesn't have a bio. The closest thing here to Evan Lambert is List of The Boys characters. And he was briefly detained for refusing to leave a sidescrum, not for derailing a train. I therefore humbly decline your request. If you ever do become a Wikipedian, you'll gradually come to understand why WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME are more persuasive than your assertions in that regard. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you, I learned a lot from reading from those links.

And maybe one day I'll be a Wikipedian, in the meantime, I'm working hard trying to not be a BIO1E 2603:7081:5200:1A07:A8DC:5526:51DA:A109 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ominous...good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I am being honest with you when I posted the comment saying (paraphrased) “charges dropped” it was to show the events final conclusion. I don’t know Wikipedia well enough to confidently re-add a section; I was when surprised someone made it on the Wiki. Sroth0616 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty. All I meant by the above comment is that I hope the IP isn't considering making some "final conclusion" in the form of a mass casualty event. There are better ways to get a point across. I guess that's now my advice for you and the IP (and anyone else who might be thinking of WP:BLP1Eing themself). Don't do it. Also, don't re-add the section. Named living people not even charged with a crime don't need the Internet even suggesting their guilt. Especially not in the context of a train derailment. If anyone here should later think this has to belong anywhere, think it belongs at his employer's article. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Sroth0616 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Update to my initial talk thread comment/post (article below)

Charges against NewsNation reporter dropped — NewsNation

https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/charges-filed-against-newsnation-reporter-dropped/; Sroth0616 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, this is why I dropped the section again, now presumably forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing all of the discussion posts (on this topic) to date [02:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)] on this thread I agree with your opinion. Sroth0616 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have made it [closing the loop] more obvious; I have no clue who re-added it after 'closing the loop'. Sroth0616 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea when this "loop" was open or closed, but the only editor I remember restoring it at all is a Grand High Togneme Vicarus (a grandmaster editor, in plain English), so I'm sure he had his reasons. But that was back when this seemed like it might go somewhere, legally, and this is now. Unless it comes back, best to just forget about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Only time will tell. Thank you for your help. Sroth0616 (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2023

2023 Ohio train derailment → 2023 East Palestine, Ohio rail disaster – The effects and scale of this accident are exceeding that of the train derailment itself, so it may be time to change the name of this article. TSwanyIRL (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural note. Mid discussion, the nominator has changed their requested title from 2023 Ohio vinyl chloride disaster

  to 2023 East Palestine, Ohio chemical disaster

  to 2023 East Palestine, Ohio rail disaster. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  What does this mean for all discussion prior to this time? Are they now void or do they still have meaning when talking about why the old title should be supported/opposed? RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, chemical disaster was an error on my end. So really, discussion only shifted from the first to the third title. Regardless, no, the arguments prior should not be void, as they in part led to the changing of the proposed title in the first place. And no one should be opposed to the proposed title changing again as the discussion continues. I see proposed titles as malleable, and should in the end move to whatever can be settled on — but my focus is more on changing it to something other than "train derailment". Whether the title says East Palestine or Ohio or both, I don't have a very strong opinion on, though I lean more towards simply Ohio to avoid confusion. TSwanyIRL (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not in keeping with how we name train crashes. it should really be 2023 East Palestine Train Derailment. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For example consider the San Bernardino train disaster aka Cajon Pass. the gas pipeline is better known than the derailment but its causation beignet he accident and subsequent repair work makes its current title better San Bernardino Pipeline Explosion. Perhaps 2023 East Palestine Train Disaster will be a suitable compromise, it not solely a redirect. I'll begin making redirects for this page later today. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Im just gonna say that I find any concerns about Palestine and EP unpersuasive. "east palestine" is not commonly used to refer to a region of the Middle East, there are numerous Palestines around the world, and viewers of this article won't be confused because they can quickly determine what nation.region this occurred in. using EP vs OH doesn't matter to be, but I dislike EP,OH. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, since the real issue is that the train crashed. The vinyl chloride is the aftermath of the train crash but it's not the only way vinyl chloride can be leaked into the environment. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's enough inconsistencies at Category:Derailments in the United States that "2023 EP, OH xyz" would work as well as "2023 OH xyz". Category:Railway accidents and incidents in Ohio doesn't have enough entries so we don't have to worry about confusions of "which 2023 Ohio disaster am I clicking on?" ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I prefer keeping “Ohio” in the title; Palestine is in the Middle East. Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We could spend a whole day talking about weird naming schemes. New York, Ukraine is a real thing. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking Ohio out of the name would be deeply misleading, as most readers would naturally assume this is about the middle east. Ph0dder (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Agreed with above comment, in addition to this it's not referred in media as a vinyl chloride disaster, it's referred to and is commonly known as a train derailment.Marleeashton (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with this opposition. Emilymab (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I concur also. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with all above - Does not make sense for it to be called this, nobody would know what this is. Odd title "rail disaster". The disaster wasn't because or about the rail. I really just vote "2023 East Palestine Train Disaster" - This way it'll be commonly recognized, and implies the event is beyond just a derailment.SwissAmish (talk— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwissAmish (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Wait The extent of the contamination is not clear yet but unlikely to be small. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support — scanning various sources about this, it definitely looks like the chemical disaster is going to be the primary thing here, rather than the train disaster. It might be a little early for a rename, but I'm convinced that a year from now, something like "the Ohio chemical disaster" will definitely be the primary way people refer to this event, it won't be just a train crash. Krinn DNZ (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with L3X1 said and the rest of the points above. BeckyAnne(talk) 09:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – We do not yet know the full extent of the contamination or cleanup, so it is too early to change the name. Most current media reports, such as CNN's report from the morning of February 11 still refer to this as a train derailment. If any move is to be made now, it should be to 2023 East Palestine train derailment as L3X1 said. I oppose the use of the term "disaster" unless specifically referred to as such by the NTSB and/or FRA. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The "Oppose" voters all make good points. However, describing the article solely as a train derailment would not be adequately addressing the main takeaway of this event. The actual derailment of the train is not as impactful as the subsequent chemical spill, which is already causing displacement and contamination. I think "2023 Ohio vinyl chloride disaster" is not understandable by most, but I am in agreement with L3X1 in renaming the article to "2023 East Palestine Train Disaster". Gaius Publius Scipio (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I think using naming syntax purely based on train derailment examples, ignores other relevant precedents. Historically, one interesting example to consider is the Goiânia accident, one of the worst nuclear waste incidents ever. If Wikipedia had existed then, would the title have focused on the fact that it was a break-in to a hospital complex? Probably not. Obviously the train derailment is major part of the story, but the toxic waste is what is causing the news coverage. Train derailments happen all the time without being worthy of their own wikipedia article. mennonot (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Or "2023 East Palestine Chemical Spill". Gaius Publius Scipio (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gaius Publius Scipio: The San Bernardino train disaster had its greatest impact from the natural gas fire that erupted during the cleanup of the initial derailment, and the vast majority of damage due to the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster was the result of the fire fueled by crude oil being hauled by that train; however, the initial causes of both incidents were the derailments. The same applies here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Valid point, "vinyl chloride disaster" isn't a very comprehensive title. Move to shift towards "train disaster" or "chemical spill". Alternatively "chemical disaster". Though keep "Ohio" in the title as solely East Palestine may mislead folks. TSwanyIRL (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wait I feel like the response to the event is still ongoing and there might be more investigations coming. So I suggest waiting. However, I do composed a list of sources (reliable or not) calling the event "disaster" or "environmental disaster: [1] by Fast Company, [2] by WSWS, [3] by The Militant. -- Akira😼CA 09:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support members of the public looking for information on this are likely more interested in the environmental contamination than the initial derailment; I suspect coverage will reflect that longer-term, so WP:NPOV would suggest following the conventions in public discourse ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rail disaster is too generic. We classify railway accidents by type, and this is another derailment; there are many notable derailments. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  On second thoughts there are several articles with similar titles but they usually involve many deaths. I suppose there could be some basis for environmental disaster though it's not clear to me that this has risen to that level yet, given that the mandatory evacuation has already been lifted. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I added the article to Category:Chemical disasters, though the term "disaster" does not appear in the article body, a cited reference does use it. I think such a move is premature before the article more fully discusses the nature of the "disaster". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The ongoing crisis is notable not simply as a derailment. Describing its full scope, involving both the train's derailment and the colossal burn, warrants language that encompasses the full scope. Unless the derailment and burn will be treated in separate articles, 2023 East Palestine, Ohio rail disaster is a more complete article title. P-Makoto (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Disaster" is quite emotionally-charged for something with zero injuries thus far. I'm ambivalent on including the city or not, but it should remain "train derailment". Jumper4677 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • There are reports of adverse health effects from the burn so I don't think it's fair to consider that "zero injuries". Axem Titanium (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The proposed title has more issues than the current one given its violation of WP:COMMONNAME and the use of "disaster" in the title violates WP:DISASTER. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose or now "Disaster" is certainly not a neutral term, while "derailment" is much more neutral. Maybe in time if people start getting seriously sick or dying, we can reassess. But I do not oppose adding the town name to the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Given the new title, Oppose because I don't feel like the town name is super relevant to the disaster and does not serve the purpose of distinguishing ths accident since Ohio does not even have many rail disasters to warrant further specification by town names. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Disaster" is too subjective. MrSeaman (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why both elements can't be included, such as "[whatever] train derailment and chemical crisis". Mapsax (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Wait, the coverage will veer towards "2023 East Palestine, Ohio vinyl chloride disaster" in the next few weeks/months. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The more verbiage, the better in terms of external searches/search engines. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of "disaster" in the title as there is no evidence that it is commonly known as one, which is required for such a loaded term. "Derailment" on the otherhand is perfectly neutral. I have no strong opinion on "Ohio" vs "East Palestine". Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The disaster itself forced an evacuation only in East Palestine itself. There is substantial precedent for the naming of disasters after the city they affected, and "Ohio" is far too vague of a location.
  Additionally, I think that "derailment" does not accurately include the primary aspects of the accident, so I propose "2023 Ohio chemical accident". Very Conscious Citizen (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Point of information: The evacuation zone was split almost evenly between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Indeed, RS pending, I recall that the gas cloud initially drifted east. Mapsax (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wait/Support per Ceoil and Osunpokeh, could be a big enviromental disaster effecting several states. Just to early at the moment, when the time comes either 2023 Ohio vinyl chloride disaster or 2023 East Palestine, Ohio chemical disaster Koltinn (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now. The event in question is not a "rail disaster" because there really isn't such as thing as a "rail disaster". The event is a train derailment creating a chemical spill. We may wish to veer more towards the spill aspect in the future, but "rail disaster" is a nothing phrase with no clear definition. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any renaming, as the current title is descriptive enough and (at least for now) no disambiguation is needed. Support creating redirects from those suggested titles as potential search terms. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The dead chickens, hens, animal and fish indicate a Disaster that is also affecting local citizens. This is not a common cold incident. Chemicals are flowing down the Ohio River. 108.183.79.51 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Support, there is precedent set for this naming convention. With the Lac Megantic Rail Disaster, the Ciurea Rail Disaster, the Awash Rail Disaster, the Firozabad Rail Disaster, the Khanna Rail Disaster, and the Sukkur Rail Disaster. The term derailment does not encompass the event's totality. As the majority of harmful effects from the event have come not directly from the derailment itself. But the manner in which the derailment was handled. The event encompasses a train derailment, a chemical spill, a chemical explosion, a chemical fire, a mass evacuation, an environmental disaster causing fish kills, and reports of farm animals being killed; and is woven into the current rail union labour movement. The term 'derailment' fails to encompass all of that. The term disaster as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is to describe if an accident was more destructive than other. There were 1044 train derailments in the United States in 2022, [4] Of those 1044 derailments, only one caused an evacuation of a nearby town. Paulina Louisiana, due to a single car leaking acid after a 6 car derailment.[5] 150 people were evacuated. East Palestine is a 38 car derailment, with an ensuing explosion, and fire. 4500 people were evacuated. The chemical contents of this train were released into the air, soil, and water in the surrounding area. [6]In Paulina, residents were free to return home after 1 day.[7] While residents in East Palestine were still awaiting clearance ten days after the accident. There are reports of fish kills, and animals kills ten miles from the derailment site. [8]

The term accident doesn't apply, as the burning of the chemicals was intentional. Derailment doesn't cover the extent of the event. Disaster does. Clowington (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are so correct!!! But, Why is J Biden or Mayor Pete reluctant to call it a disaster?108.183.79.51 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose 1: Only putting East Palestine will make people think literally East Palestine/Israel, which would be really confusing. 2: I think the extent of the destruction of the train derailment wouldn't qualify it under WP:DISASTER; it's not the next Chernobyl or anything, though I do think @Clowington made a good point by saying that possibly "derailment" doesn't describe the whole issue.

tl;dr: don't make the location more specific, but "disaster" is too strongly worded imo phrogge 'sup? edits 03:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose because railway "disaster" is a sensationalist title that may create unwanted panic or bias for a reader reading this. The current title is good as it is. Captain Chicky (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• 2023 Ohio hazardous materials train derailment hints at "disaster" without saying that out loud. Although apparently the train wasn't officially carrying any such materials. Just thinking out loud. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comma comment: The current title proposed by the nominator violates MOS:GEOCOMMA. Alternative comma variants could be 2023 rail disaster in East Palestine, Ohio or 2023 East Palestine, Ohio, rail disaster or simply omitting "East Palestine" (retaining "Ohio"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support some kind of change that indicates that this is more than "just" a train derailment. This RM seems like it'll be a morass to close because of all the changes in the proposal so I'll just outline my thinking: 1) I would like some indication of the chemical aspect since that seems like the most damaging factor of the incident. 2) Do not make it more specific than Ohio. The effects appear to go beyond the town of East Palestine and into PA and WV so Ohio is good for now and perhaps consider a more inclusive regional name in the future. 3) Alternatively, naming it for the train company (Norfolk Southern) may be a good option to consider. It appears that working and safety conditions at the company played a significant role in the derailment. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Wait. I see it as a given that this article name will change eventually, once a common name has emerged. Let's discuss in early 2024. VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Support, the current title downplays the incident and is generally misleading. bree Breeboi 13:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Train in two states?

I haven't found a RS for this, but it's logical that with the approximate length of the train per the number of cars, which would be around a mile-and-a-half, that the front of the train was in Pennsylvania. If I do find a RS, would this be notable or trivia? I know that the derailed cars left the track wholly in Ohio so that wouldn't change. Mapsax (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Disaster article doesn't need a 'trivia' section. Ohio state officials and the Ohio Emergency Management Agency are the ones responsible for cleanup efforts and disaster management/declarations, etc, etc. Only involvement Pennsylvania has that is noteworthy is the impact that the burning of the chemicals had on the parts of the state within the area. TSwanyIRL (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As this relates to the labor dispute

I think this catastrophe is related enough to the ongoing railroad labor dispute that resulted in executive action that prevented railroad workers from legally striking. It's hard to demonstrate a causal relationship between executive order and environmental tragedy, but maybe it's at least worth a mention? 2600:8800:118:6D00:0:0:0:BDAB (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm for the inclusion of this labor dispute. Part of this tragedy was caused by train cars not being inspected well enough as employees only had 90 seconds to do so instead of their previous 3 minutes. Union action was attempting to improve working conditions, including this aspect. A link could be inserted in the "See also" section. Safyrr 13:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You would need RS that demonstrates a connection to the labor dispute. Do you have that? Sectionworker (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you are talking to me or the other person, but I don't think the connection to the labour dispute is strong enough to warrant its own section in the article (at least, with what I know). I think just a mention in "See also" is appropriate.

I see a lot of speculation online though that the accident is partly caused by corporate greed, which union action could of maybe theoretically fought against. So, if over time more articles like this pop up, and people want to create a section about this type of speculation, then I would support it. Safyrr 17:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Putting it in the "see also" list is suggestively editorializing. There needs to be a reliable source for it to be mentioned in the article --- there are mentions of the labor dispute in articles from The Hill and the New York Times, so it's reasonable to include it in the text (maybe in the background, or in an "aftermath" or "public reaction" section. Biktor627 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Serious omission

There is a serious omission in the current version of this article: 20 miles and a whole hour before the train got to East Palestine, one of its malfunctioning car axles was captured on fire by a security camera in Salem, Ohio. This seems really too important a piece of background information to leave out. Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/video-shows-sparks-or-flames-20-miles-before-train-derailment-in-east-palestine/ 76.190.213.189 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That might not be the only omission... -- Seelefant (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

While that's all reasonably sketchy, UAE Exotic Falconry & Finance is not really what I'd consider to be a reliable sources...Biktor627 (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Details are still emerging regularly about the event, and given the refusal of national media to actively cover the issue up until this point I'm going to take a wild guess (/s) and say that there's a lot we still don't know. Article will be updated as those details emerge. So not as much a serious omission as just new details that have yet to be included. TSwanyIRL (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Steve Lookner

Why does it say "Steve Lookner" at the very top of the page? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That was vandalism by 78.67.14.24, reverted 10 minutes later. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Section on government / national media failure to cover the situation?

Section title here essentially sums it up. The glaring lack of national media coverage and government silence in the week following the disaster has become quite a talking point, and could use a subsection in the Impacts and Reactions section. TSwanyIRL (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

What would be the point of claiming that nobody's talking about it? It seems to have become a talking point on a lot of anti-establishment social media profiles types, but it's not matched in the reality of the situation--- there's plenty of discussion of it in the corporate press. Biktor627 (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they haven't been reporting daily as in the Turkey/Syria earthquake zone where more people have died, but they are covering it. New York Times: In Ohio Town Where Train Derailed, Anxiety and Distrust Are Running Deep Nearly two weeks after a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, confusing messages from government officials have frayed locals’ trust.

This was the lead story last night February 15 on the NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt.

More coverage is surely coming when the government investigators release their official report(s). – wbm1058 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I keep reading Wikipedians say something isn't covered, but what is it? Specifically, I mean. Did people die, was it an inside job, did the train carry something it shouldn't have? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Compare and contrast national media coverage

• Democracy Now “Bomb Train” in Ohio Sickens Residents: Railroad Cutbacks, Corporate Greed Led to Toxic Disaster
• Fox News interviewing JD Vance

Don't blame me, I voted for Tim Ryan (sent his campaign money, too). Bet he wouldn't have waited over a week to talk about this from his Senate seat. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo

Could someone please add this photo somewhere in the article? I'm not experienced with this kind of stuff Trade (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for the local who took that photo, and if you're watching here, please help clear up the licensing issue to ensure that we can keep the picture in this article. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I told him how we can solve the licensing issue. Currently waiting for a response Trade (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Could be concern about this thing I found on twitter.

https://twitter.com/FalconryFinance/status/1625872327568420864/photo/1

https://twitter.com/FalconryFinance/status/1625875297483763712/photo/2

Is it true or false?. Is everyone in that area doomed. Is everyone in that area doomed to die a early death? I live in Maine does that mean I am f***ed. It scaring me. GALee246 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the Twitter account anyone disagreeing with them are being paid to do so. Not really reliable source Trade (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Notable unreliable source, mostly satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.41.32 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

screening level

We need an explanation of what the term "screening level" means. It's used twice in the article as it stands now. Nowhere in the article is the term defined. The EPA document in the footnote has a short section about "screening level" but even that does not offer a particularly cogent definition. For example, it's not clear whether "minimal risk level" and "screening level" are the same thing. 69.161.125.36 (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Vinyl chloride

It hasn't come up in the article, but the the media links refer to this this as a toxin which is incorrect: Vinyl chloride is a poison (there's no known biological origin of vinyl chloride). 24.51.192.49 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So I suppose toxicant is the correct term here. I tweaked the article. Now we only see the term "toxin" in the references section. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's probably an even more correct term. The article on vinyl chloride does in fact state it may be produced through biological processes. The industrial vinyl chloride discussed here most certainly isn't, however, so I think toxicant is probably the more accurate term. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RIN 2130-AC47

The braking system being discussed here was only for unattended cars, not moving cars. As stated in DOT ruling RIN 2130-AC47.

The ruling states:

"This rulemaking would amend the brake system safety standards for freight and other non-passenger trains and equipment to ensure better compliance of the requirements relating to the securement of unattended equipment. Specifically, FRA would codify some of the requirements already included in its Emergency Order Establishing Additional Requirements for Attendance and Securement of Certain Freight Trains and Vehicles on Mainline Track or Mainline Siding Outside of a Yard or Terminal ("Emergency Order 28"). 78 FR 48218 (Aug. 7, 2013). Amendments to FRA's existing regulations would include additional securement requirements for unattended equipment, primarily for those that include cars containing certain hazardous materials, and additional communication requirements relating to job briefings and securement verification. This rulemaking was recently downgraded to nonsignificant and will not appear on next month's report." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.125.151 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

C'mon 27.32.125.151, are you working for Norfolk Southern?

Here is the text of that rule which arose out of safety concerns following the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster. It established specific additional requirements:

• All hand brakes must be fully applied on all locomotives in the lead consist of an unattended train.
• All hand brakes must be fully applied on all locomotives in an unattended locomotive consist outside of yard limits.
• The minimum requirement for an unattended locomotive consist within yard limits is that the hand brake must be fully applied on the controlling locomotive.
• Railroads must develop, adopt, and comply with procedures for securing any unattended locomotive that is not equipped with an operative hand brake.

That was to mitigate the risk of a parked, unattended train rolling down into a town.

The braking system discussed in this article, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, are brakes used to slow and stop moving trains, not parking brakes! wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The section of the article under Background, "Brakes" doesn't clearly state the association with the article in question. It isn't clear whether brakes were involved in this accident or not. Some narrative and cited sources explaining how this relates to the article would be much appreciated. Otherwise, the read looks like it was thrown in as a particular Wikipedian's speculation about the cause, which isn't encyclopedic. So much as we want answers, the cause really should come from the investigation report of the NTSB. 98.191.147.19 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability

There are an average of 1,700 train derailments in the US per year. Why does this one have a wikipedia page and others don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.36.175 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The content and effects of the derailment are also of interest. A train that falls on a forest is of different notability than one which falls on a person. Blackcat415 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I meant tree in a forest. Got my metaphors mixed up. Blackcat415 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What is/are the content and effects of the derailment and why does that differ from a typical derailment? 31.94.36.175 (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How many of those 1,700 derailments result in mandatory evacuation of all residents within a mile, and "controlled" burns of chemicals? wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh so there are chemicals involved and environmental concerns, and that's why it's notable? Maybe we should change the name from "train derailment" to something that reflects its notability then? 31.94.36.175 (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)