Talk:Kiss nightclub fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible AfD candidate[edit]

Sorry to create this so fast. I saw that the death toll is very high (even compared to other such nighclub fire articles), and so it should probably pass the enduring aspect of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna I went to the nightclub address on Google Earth and maps and it does not appear to be a nightclub. Could the address be incorrect? Volcanoman7 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. I checked news images and they seemed to match, plus the website listed at the homepage and other company listing services. Let me check more, but I think google images streetwalk was taken before it became a club. That's my guess. We should probably resolve this ASAP as other language wikipedias are also using this image now. I will recheck now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found it at google maps street view. Go east 50m on the south side. Just getting the coords now. Please update coords and I will work on new map. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you fix the coords, I'm useless with them. http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=-29.684147,-53.806947&hl=en&ll=-29.684152,-53.805966&spn=0.002181,0.003106&num=1&t=h&z=18 Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coords at article fixed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. File:Kiss nightclub fire - location map 01.png I added a previous version with no markings for future adjustments. Thanks for the catch. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This is English Wikipedia. So cites should be in English. En-Wikipedia can only re-write what has been published in English. Not Spanish or German. How can a foreign language source be WP:V when most people cannot translate? 86.160.188.65 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read a bit further down the page you link to to this section. If you can find more reliable English-language sources, then add them. Most of the initial press reports will be in Portuguese. You're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a research scientist (I don't know Wikipedia rules) it is perfectly legitimate to reference an article or research in another language. I wonder why you limit yourself here? Knowledge can come from anywhere. I think that a person attempting to check references will have to decide whether it is worth it to translate. Even if you have a Portuguese wikipedia it still should not matter. Original sources should be sought rather than those translated into English and rereported. Just a thought. Volcanoman7 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I accept the idea that a Y language source does not meet WP:V on an X language Wikipedia page. I went to one of the Portuguese sources linked, right-clicked and selected translate and got a fairly clear automated transliteration. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly[edit]

Typical. You're making the rules up based on POV. The page on WP:V is quite explicit as the very first line clearly states "people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". So using the aforementioned logic shown above, it's reliable as long as it is assumed everyone can read or understand native-level Portuguese? Plus it's all right to put faith in an online translator. What?? The point of verifiability on Wikipedia is that an English-native reader should be able to critically assess a source themselves; not have to rely on a third-party translator. So quantitatively, how is the translator assessed for its accuracy? Which translator does one use?

The reaction to my clear and explicit point is that a dichotomy exists if articles on en-WP must be written in English but the sources they are based on do not. This means the interpretation of sources is entirely up to the contributing editor. Pah so much for common sense, probity, and an NPOV. This only works if editorial lines are followed. Cherry picking in all but name. For instance if someone added something off-the-ball, then cue: big fight! The source is no longer acceptable.

Seems apparent to me, the use of non-English sources are good only when they serve to support a presupposed English proposition. In other words putting the cart before the horse! In this case a tragic fire so easy to comprehend, but what about more problematic events like the Middle East or Kashmir. I bet the hypocrisy of Wikipedia means foreign sources are not tolerated in the same way in those articles!

You can't have this both ways. But then again this is Wikipedia so maybe you can. 86.181.26.250 (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NONSENSE
who are you? You are not logged in apparently so you are someone off the street it appears. Are you an editor for Wikipedia? I certainly hope not. Your arrogance is surpassed only by your ignorance. Science research has somehow managed to reference articles in other languages for a hundred years without having to consider the accessibility or understanding of those references by the reader. The responsibility is on the reader to dig out the data if they question the reliability of a source. The best factual information coming from this story is in Portuguese. I guess what you are suggesting is to wait until some American reporter uses a translator (perhaps Google translator) to read and rereport the article. Yes that seems like a really good way to get to the pertinent information. It appears to me that you care more about the readers being able to read the information in the references than whether the information is correct or not. But I can assure you that second hand accounts are not a reliable source. Volcanoman7 (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are of course many articles that refer to sources from other languages, including not just many modern languages but also ancient and medieval ones, which most readers cannot check.
In my view an Encyclopedia is not a place for breaking news. But since Wikipedia has become a scrambler after ambulances of all stirps, this article can and should cite sources written in Portuguese. The article in Portuguese (which I have just read) is much more complete. One should remember, however, that any source in any language can be inaccurate or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.28.252.210 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start a Nightclub fire article[edit]

I think it would be interesting to start an article about Nightclub fires, and to add this information in the nightclub article. What do you think about it?

Rhcastilhos (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if nightclub fires are that prevalent. If you are able to find sources that say they are, go for it. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have this template (Template:Club fires) and this category (Category:Nightclub fires) that list more than 20 fires in the last century. It's not a common accident, but it's relevant in its securities issues and death toll. Rhcastilhos (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right about that. Feel free to create the article. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 hospitalized victim died[edit]

According to the headline article on Huffington Post, one of the hospitalized victims died. While the article itself still says that the body count would be 232 (instead of 232 + the hospitalized victim = 233), should we go with the latter? DrAndrewWinters (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Address[edit]

[relocated from a redirect page]

The street number is 1955, not 1925 (!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.184.196.214 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The street map[edit]

Are you sure it should be replaced with an entire country map? That map doesn't show the location of the nightclub. It shows the location of Santa Maria.

If the fire was beside Central Park in Manhattan, would we still only show a country map? Perhaps both, side by side, considering that there is a Santa Maria inset in the street map. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with you. I'd say the street map is good, too. ComputerJA (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the street map (with inset, as nicely done here) should be added in, showing both. Just having "Nightclub location in Brazil" on a map of most of South America is a bit silly, and still vague in any case... Simply because most editors are unfamiliar with the location doesn't mean it needs to only appear on a partial world map, since it's certainly not an isolated location. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

It's getting populated with items in the navbox. Is this necessary? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are definitely redundant. Someone might make an argument for República Cromañón nightclub fire as it was on the same continent...but that's a bit weak. All of those fires are in the navbox as you note, along with others that seem just as "related", so it's also a bit undue just to include a few seemingly random ones when the navbox has many more. (And "nightclub fire" just linked to List of nightclub fires, which is also in the navbox.) I removed it. (Edit: At least some of those seem to also have been set off by pyrotechnics...still seems like needless clutter, though.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Info Conflicts[edit]

Well, it is well known that this is a recent event, but there's a problem with the sources, you don't know which one can be trusted. Most of the edits on this page are based on well known news websites owned by well known tv stations. the problem is that they are reporting different things. I just saw 3 different stations reporting different things, such as the number of victims, how the fire started, the number of persons that club was allowed by law to accommodate, whether or not the CCTV system was deliberately disabled, whether or not the club was operating correctly under state, federal and international standards. Those conflicts can be seen at the sources webpages.

What are we supposed to do about that?

RodrigoCruzatti (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations[edit]

The Investigations section is stating the cause of the fire is still unknown. However, Brazilian media states it was due to a flare lit up by the singer of the band. This brazilian article explains it: http://g1.globo.com/rs/rio-grande-do-sul/noticia/2013/01/tragedia-em-santa-maria-o-que-ja-se-sabe-e-perguntas-responder.html / Translation: What is already known: The fire started around 2h30am on the Sunday, during the concert of the band Gurizada Fandangueira who accomplished a sort of firework show which spread extremely quick due to the material used for the club's acoustic isolation. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death List[edit]

Should we, based on verifiable sources, add a list with the names of those who perished in the fire? --Orion Brasil (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is no. A list of 200+ names would quickly overwhelm the article. Glancing through some of the articles in the nav template for other nightclub fires, I'm not seeing such lists in them either. What I did see on at least a couple of them, was links in the External Links section to such a list on external sites. If a reliable source puts up such a list, I think it would be appropriate to link to such. - TexasAndroid (talk)

An external link at the end of the article would be ok I think. RodrigoCruzatti (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

District and neighborhood[edit]

We should probably add one to the infobox or Kiss nightclub fire#Background. I just can't figure it out.

Please see:

Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the data you provided, I'd say it is located at "Centro Urbano" nieghborhood, which translates as "Urban Center", or simply "downtown". The district would be Sede. Victão Lopes I hear you... 02:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I live in SM and the information by Victão Lopes is correct. The neigh is Centro (downtown) and the distr is Sede, district of Santa Maria. I'll create the article Centro, Santa Maria, as I done in Palma, Santa Maria. -- Imagens SM (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my friend. I am grateful. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image for infobox[edit]

I see this. Can we use it? I checked Flickr -- nothing. Are there any such image hosting sites in Brazil we can search? If nothing comes up in 24 hours, I will post at Wikiproject Brazil to ask members. There must be loads of images out there somewhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some rewording[edit]

"It has also been reported that the fire extinguishers in the club may have been falsified or were disabled at the time."

How exactly does one "falsify" a fire extinguisher? Does this imply that the extinguisher was a prop, or was in some way fake? Or that the fire officials were merely misled as to whether or not there were extinguishers? There is a key difference between these two, and clarification is needed. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of reactions[edit]

You can find the full list of reactions here : http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Repercuss%C3%A3o_do_inc%C3%AAndio_na_boate_Kiss. Jml3msg 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jml3 (talk • contribs)

poisonous smoke[edit]

should we put in the article, that the foam released lethal hydrogen cyanide when burned, and that the USA had to send cyanide antidote for the victims, and that any polymer containing nitriles are a extreme risk for human life, but governments overlook it because of massive lobbies from greedy chem corporations? 189.90.54.58 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

corruption[edit]

four other people face lesser charges related to false testimony and fraud in documents related to the fire. Five firefighters face trial in military court on negligence charges, while three are accused of falsifying public documents


http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-no-safer-deadly-club-fire-050815602.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiss nightclub fire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kiss nightclub fire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ozone Disco fire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiss_nightclub_fire&oldid=1204923785"