Talk:Massive explosion in North Toronto, Ontario

OR
OR referes to IRC conversation I had with person who was 10km away. (I got permission to quote them). Several other people were on the Wikinews IRC channel at the time so they can verify that I am not making this up, Anonymous101talk 10:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I invited the person to IRC from another place to get a quote, they were not on Wikinews IRC asking to be quoted. I think this makes it more trustworthy. Anonymous101talk 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly keen on this as OR. In such a case they should identify — if not who they are — exactly where they live/observed the event. --SVTCobra 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

 * yay, you've used the new template Anonymous101talk 12:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The basic fact of the company name was wrong, btw. --SVTCobra 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CBC Coverage
Just took a look at www.cbc.ca and they have coverage of the event: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/10/propane-fire.html. I've never edited a wiki before, so I'll leave the authoring of the article to a professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.103.254 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an accompanying article with reactions from residents: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/10/explosion-residents.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.103.254 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube user citation
This is an excellent article, thanks to all involved! Just wondering whether YouTube users should be cited as "witnesses"? Given that Wikipedia discourages links to YouTube and refers to it as an "unreliable source", is it advisable to include wolfshades' comment? Wolf m corcoran (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly echo this concern, and would advise against similar useage in the future.Sherurcij 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikinews is not wikipedia, and original reporting is not compiled from published secondary sources. There's nothing special about YouTube that means its users are more likely to lie to a reporter than are any other random people on the street who claim to have witnessed something important. If there are issues here, they're about quoting anonymous sources, not about YouTube. Foogus (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)