Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Latvia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject European Union (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Retailing (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns?[edit]

There seems to be a clear consensus in the #Threaded discussion section against including a list of fatalities in the article, which was implemented in this edit. Therefore the question about the use of bulleted points in columns is now moot. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had placed the list of deceased into columns for better legibility, and because of easier coding, and because the list of names is a list, I placed all the names into a bulleted list. An IP user with less than five edits in his/her contribution history later reverted the list because "bullets dominate the article inappropriately," with which I disagree, because the bulleted list helps the layout with longer entries in the list. Because I still wanted the names formatted in columns, I restored the columns, but so far without bullets. -Mardus (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The same IP user later on placed the names into five columns (instead of the three), which means that in a 1024x768 resolution some additional information wraps into a new line. For purposes of layout, the list should now need bullets for each item. This IP user also deleted references in the article, which had to be restored. -Mardus (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Should the names of the deceased be put into a bulleted list for purposes of better layout?

Place your votes here.

  • No, the current layout looks fine. It is a good compromise. Bullets and tables put too much emphasis on this detail, and diminish other sections. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it is an ugly layout, but the current one is also not the best solution, should either use table or come up with something else ~~Xil (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The bulleted list spread into columns looks fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not. (Adding this per RfC request.) A list of victims is not necessary and duly not notable for an encyclopedia. There are ample blogs that you can post that kind of information at. Wikipedia is not a blog, and it is certainly NOT a memorial. Any notable person who died in the catastrophe may (possibly) be mentioned, but even that would normally be at the home article. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Further comments should be here.

I'd like to see my work restored as current format excludes part of information and it would be hard to add any extra information, while keeping it visually appealing/easy to read. The user who is campaigning to have names removed altogether has not brought up anything to support his claims and seems to currently be preferring reverting over discussion. The argument that victims of disaster are not notable is highly questionable - if it was not for them we probably wouldn't have this article. I believe this originally comes from comments or guidelines on general notability elsewhere that apply to having separate article or list, the victims can be considered notable in the context of the article. ~~Xil (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Also it becomes apparent that the length of the list is a (or the) concern. It is not actually that long compared to rest of the article. The references section then also should be removed as it takes up even more. This is purely a matter of taste that is currently being put above the functionality and content ~~Xil (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding minutiae such as dates of birth and vocations is just trivia and cruft. If you want to create a tribute page to victims, try raising a standalone article. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a who's who of Maxima victims. WWGB (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with WWGB. See also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --John (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In the articles I mentioned in the above discussion ages and occupations of victims are mentioned. Could you explain why different standards apply here? Besides we already agreed that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to having an article for that purpose. ~~Xil (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it be more acceptable, if User:Xil created a table in his/her own userspace and linked to it here? — Because if his work is later deemed by consensus worthy of inclusion, then it would be readily available. -Mardus (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Basically you are suggesting that I userify it for eternity, which actually would be in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. None of you have as of yet demonstrated that there is a general consensus on Wikipedia against including victims list with age and occupation (in fact I demonstrated above that there isn't any) or why it should not be included in this particular case. Consensus means having an opinion in common, not taking a stance without giving any argument to support it ~~Xil (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Just as you have not yet demonstrated that there is any benefit to the article including victims' occupations or dates of birth. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why I need to demonstrate this when I have clearly demonstrated that there is no general consensus against such lists and you can not make a good argument why it should not be included here. In the same way you could delete any other part of the article and claim it is right thing to do. The disaster is notable because the loss of lives, not because of structural failure and resulting property damage. The list gives a general idea who where the victims, how did they get there, how their deaths might affect community. Also it seems few might have some notability and one woman apparently was pregnant, which some might consider loss of two lives. Listing names alone does not mean anything and neither does just mentioning the ages. And it is not a memorial or trivia, what I would see as unacceptable detail would be listing their relatives, pets, hobbies and such ~~Xil (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment That line of reasoning is blatant Synthesis. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can find anybody who died who truly met our notability standards you should definitely feel free to write articles on them. Failing that we don't gain any benefit from having a nonspecific list of their ages, occupations, and other attributes. Saying that some other articles have this won't do; the onus is on you to demonstrate an encyclopedic need for this material. --John (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to "write articles on them", I want to know content has been removed from the article as there is no solid argument for doing so and why there are double standards here. An essay like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an opinion, not a guideline and WP:ONUS is the verifiability guideline, but everything has been cited. In fact in great scheme of things you cannot come of with proof - you say that this is not how it's done and the information is irrelevant, yet we have other articles where it is done and you fail to demonstrate why the reasons I came up with on why this list helps for understanding of subject matter are not valid. I'd like to add to the later that it is perhaps not important to understanding the event itself (i.e. roof collapsing), but what happened afterwards (i.e. some reactions of Latvian society, investigation and such) ~~Xil (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The onus is on the editor adding new information to prove there is a reason for it in the article. A CLEAR CONSENSUS may sometimes over-ride that (as in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but that is not the case here, where the clear consensus indicated above, is to not include the list. The list is not encyclopedic, and there is consensus to keep it out. As such, I have removed it per Not News and Not Memorial. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Someone will have to find a new image to go on the article, as the current one is up for deletion on Freedom of panorama grounds. This apparently doesn't exist in Latvia. Valenciano (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be covered by WP:Fair use policy, if it is, you as the author should upload it to English Wikipedia and describe how it is covered by it ~~Xil (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should tell the facts;this was probably state terrorism[edit]

Why is there no mention that this was probably state terrorism? I live in Riga and hear many people say this. Think about the facts and draw your own conclusions:

After the attack many people noted suspicious circumstance surrounding it:

+the attck took place in the main Latvian nationalist week, after November 18th, when the Latvian government usually whips up hatred of Russians.

+the attack happened in Zolitude, the area of Riga where the most Russians live.

+the attack happened, not in the middle of the night, when the store was empty but at 1800pm, when the store was at its busiest.

+the Latvian government refused help from foreign governments, especially Russias. (What did they have to hide?)

+the Latvian government ordered the scene cleaned up as quickly as possible (what did they have to hide?)

+despite it being a small incident, the prime minister of Latvia resigned just after a meeting with the president.

What many people think happened is this: the Latvian government, which has long wanted rid of its Russian inhabitants, planned the attack. Placing a small amount of explosives at key points on the roof timed to explode at a time when the store was at its fullest. (The building work gave perfect cover.) The attack happened without the knowledge of the President. The government thought he would just go along with it, even if he found out. However the President did find out, summoned the Prime Minister to a meeting and there, told him that he knew everything. He then blackmailed Dumbrovskis, threatening to expose the plot unless Dumbrovskis resigned and allowed Berzsins to appoint a puppet Prime Minister, who he could blackmail into doing his bidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talkcontribs) 16:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. If "many people say this" as you claim, I'm sure at least a few newspapers would have written about it. Please provide reliable sources in English, Latvian or Russian that support it. --Երևանցի talk 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At the time of the attack, many people reported hearing an explosion. That is also in many, newspapers, so that has been written about. All the other facts I present above have been written about too! The Wikipedia report already says that Latvija refused the help of foreign governments. It already says that the Prime Minister resigned after a small incident after a meeting with the president. You can find out easily that Zolitude is the most Russian part of Riga. Please, tell the truth!! The only conspiracy is the Latvian government one!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talkcontribs) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that large groups of (probably Russian) children were in the store too, if crap written allover Internet is to be believed :D Also it isn't were most Russians live - Russians are in majority there, but there are several such neighborhoods in Riga; the explosion like noise was building collapsing, there are videos of subsequent collapses in which you can hear it; the Latvian government was offered help by several countries and refused every single one, because there was no way they realistically could use it, they did however allow Estonian firefighters to observe as they apparently asked for it as learning expierience; the scene was not cleaned up quickly, in fact they only started doing it yesterday due to complaints by the locals, why rescue happened quickly should be obvious. And calling independence day nationalist week is xenophobic bullshit that doesn't even make sense (how would that contribute to state planting bombs?) ~~Xil (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point! There obviously where children in the store at the time of the bombing. How would there not be at such a busy time not long after school had finished? So the fact that no children where among the dead, is also very suspicious. A friend of my friend told her that her work colleague's young niece had been killed in the bombing and that this was being covered up. I've heard that a figure of 20 children where killed; why they do that is unclear. But I suspect the Latvian government is worried that if the truth ever does come out, having murdered Russian kids would only add to the shame. Only firefighters from Estonia, the only other country that hates Russias people more than Latvija does, where there "to observe"; why am I not surprised? Probably it will be better if Russian people in Estonia don't visit supermarkets in the center of that country soon, especially during Estonian nationalist week.

Zolitude is the most Russian district, that's a fact. No one has answered my question of why the collapse just happened at 1800, when the store was at it's most full? Why did Dombrovskis resign after such a minor incident? Did Tony Blair resign after the train crash in Britain or Obama after the hurricanes? No!! Clearly he resigned because he was guilty of something and was being blackmailed by those that found out, like the president. (Expect a close friend or ally of the President to be appointed as the new Prime Minister soon.)

It happened in Latvian nationalist week, when celebrations where taking place around Riga and anti-Russian prejudice is at it's worst and the comings of goings of those carrying out the attack would be less likely to be noticed. Most of the forensic evidence was destroyed quickly after, during the second collapse, which was likely organised as well. People didn't say they heard the sound of a building collapsing, they said they heard an explosion, like a bomb. Massive difference!! That was soon airbrushed out of later press reports. No, too many strange coincedences. As Latvija's press is mostly government controlled, I don't think we will hear the truth from them. That is why Wikipedia, like Wikileaks, should take the lead in exposing this conspiracy, not in simply parrotting Latvijan government propoganda. This should not be removed or censored from the article. How do I make sure that the information is fixed in the article and not removed by Latvian nationalists? Who is the main moderator for this page?

Also, I find the fact that Xil chooses to make jokes about this, by adding sly smily faced emoticons, very distasteful. The murder of around a hundred innocent people in an ethnic cleansing incident, is not a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talkcontribs) 17:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, god, if you intend to continue this insanity, you'll need to find WP:Reliable sources. A social network posting of "somebody told me they saw gazilion dead children in morgue" or "normally I see million of kids in stores at the time" does not constitute such source. What is distasteful here is trolls like you attempting to use tragedy (in which BTW people of multiple nationalities perished) to incite ethnic hatred ~~Xil (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not blame. Learn what happened, when happened, why it happened. Start with the model of disaster. Currently created model catastrophe: According this model collapse of supermarket «Maxima»-result of resonant oscillations parts of the building, caused by an external source.Other models describe the individual properties of the building, which could contribute to crash or could not contribute to the crash. Reliably establish the numerical characteristics of these properties at the time of the disaster is not possible.TVERD (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as I predicted, a puppet prime minister was indeed appointed by the Latvian president, who exceeded his autority (he is only supposed to be a constitutional figure head) to veto candidates of other parties so that his prefered candidate could get the job. I have added that, with a reference— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda2014 (talkcontribs)

The said reference only contains information about there being new prime minister, nothing about puppets and what not ~~Xil (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sketchy casualty numbers[edit]

Just an observation - website of charity collecting donations for the injured and families of the victims reports that they've given money to 41 people who were hospitalized on 21 November and 17 people hospitalized later.[1] In the news, as far as I remember, 35 people were initially reported by paramedics (it rose to 39 few days later), however there was conflicting information on the night after the incident about around 40 injured that apparently was reported by police. Not sure, if charity is to be trusted as there have been reports about fraudsters trying to cash in on this and they might be reporting about family members of the victims or other people who were not in the store, but were somehow still involved ~~Xil (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a report on police being questioned by members of the parliament. It says that for purposes of the criminal investigation the 54 dead and 41 persons who "suffered any kind of bodily harm" have been recognized as victims. As such I updated the number ~~Xil (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Move under more specific title?[edit]

EAfter the incident several more collapses in the past were brought up (including one other store of the same chain), while none of those involved dozens of victims and are not likely to get an article, this means that the current title could apply to several events. I suggest Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde, which includes both the name of the store and the neiborghood, which would set it appart from other chains and other stores in the city ~~Xil (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved to Maxima massacre, to reflect the fact that this was likely state terrorism. Any other article title is a simple betrayal of the truth and commonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda2014 (talkcontribs)
That wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia:Article titles since massacre is not a neutral title, nor it is a common name for the event ~~Xil (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
Has another supermarket roof collapse occurred in Riga? That would be a valid reason to consider renaming the article. Options include substituting the neighborhood for the city (the latter of which has been mentioned far more frequently by reliable sources, so it otherwise is preferable), specifying the chain's name, or appending "2013". It's unlikely that more than one of those changes is necessary. —David Levy 02:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)