Talk:2020 Beirut explosion: Difference between revisions
TompaDompa (talk | contribs) →Relief section: Already mentioned elsewhere. |
→Requested move 5 August 2020: Add support |
||
Line 374: | Line 374: | ||
*'''Support''' - technically there were 2 explosions however the notable explosion was clearly the second one, Had it just been the firework explosion this article wouldn't exist. As the nom says "explosions" gives the impression a previous explosion happened in Beirut before which is not the case. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - technically there were 2 explosions however the notable explosion was clearly the second one, Had it just been the firework explosion this article wouldn't exist. As the nom says "explosions" gives the impression a previous explosion happened in Beirut before which is not the case. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - per practically all sources, and because the first explosion didn't do much in itself, other than ignite the second one. The second explosion is the subject of the article, the first one is just background, as someone else pointed out. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' - per practically all sources, and because the first explosion didn't do much in itself, other than ignite the second one. The second explosion is the subject of the article, the first one is just background, as someone else pointed out. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - Per COMMONNAME, it's referred to as a singular explosion in almost all news sources because only the larger explosion is significant. [[User:Nicereddy|Nicereddy]] ([[User talk:Nicereddy|talk]]) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==In order to avoid edit wars== |
==In order to avoid edit wars== |
Revision as of 23:55, 6 August 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Beirut explosion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 days ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving 2020 Beirut explosion was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 August 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2020 Beirut explosions was copied or moved into MV Rhosus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Reactions section
The Reaction section is removed. Any reasoning for this or should I add it back? ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 19:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Styyx, add it. Idan (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, Abductive was the one who removed it, so I'll let them explain why it was removed, but what I said above stands – these sections tend to dominate the article while being of little to no use to anybody. I say good riddance. TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should add it back; it is important to know what others have (or haven't) said about the issue. Also, it shouldn't have been unilaterally removed without consensus. Albertkaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, I restored it per Idan's comments since there was no proper edit summary to blank the section, but since I see that TompaDompa is now opposing that, it can be reverted if needed. (Though two discussion on the talk page about the same subject will be a problem.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
So now we have the same thing said at Domestic Reaction and aftermath. We need to remove one to not have the same info duplicate.already removed ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)- Those reactions sections are unencyclopedic quotefarms and roundly hated by many editors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well I restored it because the edit summary wasn't specific on the reasoning. Since that is your reasoning, I will state that I am fine with it being removed if that is the consensus. Though, I am not sure that the name "Aftermath" is descriptive enough for the content you left on the article given that it was just local reactions. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Super Goku V I don't think that the extra note is needed because it's expected every country will give condolences (by note I mean the countries note). Albertkaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am unsure what note you were talking about unless you meant either the edit summary or the "Aftermath" thing I mentioned. If it is edit summary, it just made it very unclear what the reasoning was behind it, so I just restored it since I felt there needed to be a discussion first. (Though, that got thrown out the window in the last 15 minutes since mostly everything got removed without some kind of consensus.) If you meant what I said about "Aftermath", I was just saying that the section name change didn't really fit with the contents. If it is neither, than I apologize for being thick-headed. (^_^') --Super Goku V (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is the one which says "Representatives of multiple countries offered support" and it has an appendix after multiple countries saying the countries. I think you had added that, but if not, I apologize. I just want that deleted since it makes absolutely no sense if we agree that there should be no reaction about specific countries. Albertkaloo (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Albertkaloo: I'm the one who added that because there seemed to at least be consensus in the section #Flags in the Reactions section above that the footnote would be preferable to a bullet list with flags (pending consensus on whether to remove the reactions altogether). I am in no way opposed to removing it outright. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, in a day it will probably be redundant, but until we get better overall sourcing, it will probably be ok. I'm ok with leaving the reactions setting, but I find that specific add-on useless. I'll add a new topic and see if we can get consensus on it. Albertkaloo (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I saw that, but I didn't connect the dots until your comment despite me seeing the edit you made removing it. TompaDompa has already pointed out that they made the edit, but I will say that this is a fast moving article so no apology needed, but thank you for making one. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Albertkaloo: I'm the one who added that because there seemed to at least be consensus in the section #Flags in the Reactions section above that the footnote would be preferable to a bullet list with flags (pending consensus on whether to remove the reactions altogether). I am in no way opposed to removing it outright. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is the one which says "Representatives of multiple countries offered support" and it has an appendix after multiple countries saying the countries. I think you had added that, but if not, I apologize. I just want that deleted since it makes absolutely no sense if we agree that there should be no reaction about specific countries. Albertkaloo (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am unsure what note you were talking about unless you meant either the edit summary or the "Aftermath" thing I mentioned. If it is edit summary, it just made it very unclear what the reasoning was behind it, so I just restored it since I felt there needed to be a discussion first. (Though, that got thrown out the window in the last 15 minutes since mostly everything got removed without some kind of consensus.) If you meant what I said about "Aftermath", I was just saying that the section name change didn't really fit with the contents. If it is neither, than I apologize for being thick-headed. (^_^') --Super Goku V (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Super Goku V I don't think that the extra note is needed because it's expected every country will give condolences (by note I mean the countries note). Albertkaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well I restored it because the edit summary wasn't specific on the reasoning. Since that is your reasoning, I will state that I am fine with it being removed if that is the consensus. Though, I am not sure that the name "Aftermath" is descriptive enough for the content you left on the article given that it was just local reactions. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Those reactions sections are unencyclopedic quotefarms and roundly hated by many editors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I missed that the edit changed one section's header and didn't outright delete it. Only noticed it because the article history clearly showed my edited added more that what was removed, which is a bad thing to see. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- But almost all disaster articles have a Reaction section and still some people search to see the reaction of specific countries, no matter how many editors "hate it". ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- All I want is a consensus, though I kinda think you intended to reply to someone else on the chain who has already replied to you. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- But almost all disaster articles have a Reaction section and still some people search to see the reaction of specific countries, no matter how many editors "hate it". ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: I don't think its right to remove it while a consensus has yet yo be reached. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't remove it, it's still there. I just changed the format to the one I suggested in the section #Flags in the Reactions section, as that seemed to be an uncontroversial suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here's the basics: the list format and especially the flags are a disgrace to a Wikipedia article. All major disasters garner condolences from foreign countries; these are uninteresting and listing them is WP:OR, WP:QUOTEFARM and gives WP:UNDUE weight to such reactions. Right now the article is missing the usual earthquake comparison (Moment magnitude scale), which a 3.3 according to the USGS. I'm sure there is a lot more other information out there now. Make the article better, please. Abductive (reasoning) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't remove it, it's still there. I just changed the format to the one I suggested in the section #Flags in the Reactions section, as that seemed to be an uncontroversial suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: I don't think its right to remove it while a consensus has yet yo be reached. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why is Donald Trump's views given prominence > He has no standing in this issue, a person known to make up facts, why is it even an Americans point of view important here ? Kanatonian (talk)
Bhopal disaster
This is starting to strongly resemble the Bhopal disaster in India 1984. However, we should approach this delicately and carefully as many things about this incident are not yet known. Edits to the article should be carefully monitored at this point by admins.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the resemblance. That was a chemical leak. This looks to be an isolated case where chemicals were stored near each other causing a chain reaction explosion...intelatitalk 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, I simply meant the large number of deaths caused by chemicals. I did not mean to imply they had the same cause. I do believe this should be closely monitored here on Wikipedia by admins. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, already speculation is going around that this was an attack rather than a accident and I'm already sick of it. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it may have been an attack. And, it may have been an accident. We don't know yet.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It looks more like the Tiajin explosions of 2015 than Bhopal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.121.131.94 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it may have been an attack. And, it may have been an accident. We don't know yet.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, already speculation is going around that this was an attack rather than a accident and I'm already sick of it. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, I simply meant the large number of deaths caused by chemicals. I did not mean to imply they had the same cause. I do believe this should be closely monitored here on Wikipedia by admins. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
ISIS involvement?
Reports say that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, but can't find a reliable source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, without reliable sources it won't be added. End of story.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was reported by Sputnik Turkey, then they denied it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is 100% not an attack based on eye witness video. An attack on that level would have happend all at once without warning. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless, we don't engage in original research, and instead depend on verifiable content from reliable sources. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is 100% not an attack based on eye witness video. An attack on that level would have happend all at once without warning. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was reported by Sputnik Turkey, then they denied it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Film footage
This piece from The Daily Telegraph has footage of the explosion, which seems to involve a brief mushroom cloud: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, unless the footage is freely licensed as Creative Commons or public domain, we cannot use it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see. So what about that link to The New York Times article that's Reference 3? It's used six times and has an embedded video clip? I don't see any Creative Commons or public domain licence there. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- .... and I suspect there might be thousands of similar examples across the entire encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- We can link relevant quality content, even if non-free, but not embed it unless free.--Nø (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
More pics
https://www.voanews.com/gallery/massive-explosion-rocks-beirut Victor Grigas (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Those from Reuters there are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems it is difficult to find more free pic, VOA picture quality is bad compare with the news agency. Hope someone can take some drone photos for the after explosions --Wpcpey (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
More pics
https://www.voanews.com/gallery/massive-explosion-rocks-beirut Victor Grigas (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Those from Reuters there are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I know the Reuters ones aren't free, it's the VOA ones. I just uploaded a video report from VOA and took out the AP footage in it:
Victor Grigas (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- It seems it is difficult to find more free pic, VOA picture quality is bad compare with the news agency. Hope someone can take some drone photos for the after explosions --Wpcpey (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Infobox map
Can the map in the infobox be replaced with one in English please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, I think it's imported from Open Street Map which displays the map in the local language of the area. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked at the Help Desk. We should not be using a map which is incomprehensible to most of our readers. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Rhosus, 2013 detained cargo ship
Not sure this is considered a reliable source, but the confiscation of the ship in 2014 and the status of the crew made the shipping news back then. There are multiple sources saying the Rhosus, Moldovian registry with a Ukrainian crew, was forced to seek repairs in Beirut. The ship was seaworthy. The owner of the ship and cargo could not be found. The crew was allowed to go home, the cargo was moved to a warehouse. Google has a cached version of this article from July. https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2014/4194/crew-kept-hostages-floating-bomb-mv-rhosus-beirut/ - 76.168.10.186 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- fleetmon is reliable source of maritime information. Reports of 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate confiscated from a ship and stored in the port of Beirut in 2014 are indeed relevant. In addition, in August 2020 the fleetmon ships database listed that same Moldavian flagged RHOSUS (MMSI 214181621), an 86 meter long general cargo ship, as no longer on its live tracker map for more than a year. Its cargo was listed as "agricultural commodities". https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/rhosus_8630344_46589/ Yohananw (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is very interesting, but it is original research unless sources have made the connection between the seizure of the Rhosus's payload and the explosion. The current sources does not do that, as they predates the explosion by years. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Found a source. I guess an English-language source will exist and can be added soon. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Is there any further information regarding the purpose of the shipment and who ordered it (I assume a company in Mocambique or perhaps its goverment)? --Shandristhe azylean 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Found a source. I guess an English-language source will exist and can be added soon. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is very interesting, but it is original research unless sources have made the connection between the seizure of the Rhosus's payload and the explosion. The current sources does not do that, as they predates the explosion by years. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Blast power in tonnes of TNT/Megajoules?
Is there any determination of the blast measured to the number of tonnes of TNT or Megajoules? Ryan (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is not easy to do. The cause of the explosion has been suggested to be the detonation of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in the warehouse. One could get about of TNT equivalent from that amount (0.42 being the relative effectiveness factor of ammonium nitrate). A more conservative estimate may come from visual inspection of the footage, which puts it at "several hundred tons of TNT equivalent". That's what has been reported by the Washington Post, for example. The highest number I have seen reported is 3 kT TNT equivalent, but I don't think that's reliable. For comparison, the latter would exceed the blast power of the Halifax explosion. The article on Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#2001–present currently gives a value of 1.29 kT, but that number is tagged with a
Citation needed
and should probably be removed. In any case, this explosion is of similar power as the 2015 Tianjin explosions. Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- There are now two citations, but the number in the article doesn't match. The wolfram post estimates the yield at ~100 tons TNT (with the error estimated at around 10%), which is comparable to the 300 tons in Tianjin disaster, not equal. The other article just says a “few hundred tons of TNT”. The number in Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#2001–present should probably be changed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C400:B300:C995:71D9:A39D:F061 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The method used in the wolfram post is sensitive to the fifth power of the measurements taken and so the margin of error is very high -- definitely more than 10%. 10% was the error when this method was used to estimate the Trinity yield, not the absolute error margin of the method. 3 kilotons is far too high and is likely the result of taking the total mass of AN in short tons (2750 tonnes = 3031 short tons) and wrongly assuming you can convert directly from short tons to TNT equivalent for any explosive. While 0.42 is the relative effectiveness factor of ammonium nitrate, even low levels of hydrocarbon contamination can cause that to go up dramatically, as high as 0.78, so 2750 tonnes could yield up to 2.1 kilotons depending on what else was in that warehouse. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, the detection of a 3.3 seismic event suggests a yield of up to 1.3 kilotons. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
This is linked as ammonium nitrate, not ANFO. A dimensional analysis gives me about 1.1 kiloton of TNT (like G.I Taylor Trinity explosion estimate), 0.42 conversion factor for ammonium nitrate gives 1.15 kT of TNT. Theorically in several settings the efficiency factor is lower than 0.42 not higher, it can be as low as 0.15. Finally, if the blast was higher than 1 kT the overpressure would have collapsed the front row of buildings on the other side of the large road, which was not collapsed, some of them had minor collapse but it was the exception not the rule. The estimate used in the article of 2.2 kilotons is not sourced and highly dubious, it should be removed.
A Weapons Expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies estimates the yield to be between 200-500 tons TNT equivalent. https://www.sciencealert.com/beirut-s-devastating-port-explosion-100-times-bigger-than-the-mother-of-all-bombs The article acknowledges that some are estimating up >1kt, but he says it does not compare to any nuclear explosion, where the pressure wave would be faster due to speed of a nuclear reaction. My non-expert (opinion) is that a warehouse of loosely collected, accidentally ignited, explosives are not going to be as efficient as some of the comparative explosions made here. Given that the massive Tianjin explosion is estimated in the .3 kt range, I think 1kt for this could be plausible, but pushing it. Keep in mind that yield is very difficult to calculate, and nuclear explosions should not be considered for direct comparisons. Nuclear weapon yield often doesn't even consider the explosion, rather looking at the radiochemical activity afterward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#calculating_yields_and_controversy
Exact time of the second explosion
The United States Geological Survey states that the exact time of the second explosion was 15:08:18 UTC (18:08:18 EEST)
Lord Stephenson (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nice source Lord Stephenson! I added your suggestion as an extra citation for the time, leaving the original 'about 18:08 EEST' without mention to seconds, citing you as the suggetion author. Feel free to rollback. Brunoff (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Ammonium nitrate disasters
I've created Template:Ammonium nitrate disasters, if that means we should trim the See also section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Suggested see also link
Jaʿār munitions factory explosion 142.116.53.37 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Nuclear Explosion, Disproved
A lot of people are speculating that the explosion was nuclear, but it has been cast into a lot of doubt.
Should the "Causes" section include a paragraph that says, in essence, "online, recently after the explosion, theories arose that suggested that the blast was caused by a nuclear explosion. However, explosives experts doubt this to be the cause.
This Washington Post article both states
1. That a nuclear explosion has been discussed and 2. That an expert on the subject casts doubts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/04/beirut-explosion-ammonium-nitrate/
Would this be an appropriate addition? RobotGoggles (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is just initial speculation. The blast itself (at around 1 kilotons of TNT) was about 5%-10% of Hiroshima and about the same as W54 (used in suitcase bombs). Vici Vidi (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- What rot. A nuclear explosion would have been immediately apparent, and it would have set off alarm bells in both Western and Russian/Chinese national security organizations. Saints preserve us ... HammerFilmFan
Israel blamed for explosions'
Should it be noted that there are officials in Lebanon that put the blame on an Israeli terrorist attack?--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:38FB:AF74:9E0C:A7A9 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a link to such statements? Ahmadtalk 04:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
"bomb of some kind"
According to this (and some other sources such as Reuters), President Donald Trump suggested that the explosions were caused by a "bomb of some kind". Perhaps this should be added to the "Cause" section? Ahmadtalk 04:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- When multiple reliable sources concur, perhaps? ——Serial 04:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just because Trump said something does not mean we have to jump the gun. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:WEIGHT:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY:Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.
This single source is consequently not enough for inclusion. TompaDompa (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- All we can say is under reactions that Trump said this. He certainly isn't reliable enough to put it under causes. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agree.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Trump can easily hide behind the anonymous advice supposedly given by "several of his Generals". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Trump has a track record comparable to the Daily Mail, which is a WP:DEPRECATED source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). We should not even mention that he said it unless other sources emerge that say the same thing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why can’t it be listed under international responses? Even previous editors have suggested it would be ok to place under responses instead of causes. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- For the same reason as I stated earlier. Per WP:WEIGHT:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
We don't mention minority views simply to note that they are minority views in cases like this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- For the same reason as I stated earlier. Per WP:WEIGHT:
- Why can’t it be listed under international responses? Even previous editors have suggested it would be ok to place under responses instead of causes. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Trump has a track record comparable to the Daily Mail, which is a WP:DEPRECATED source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). We should not even mention that he said it unless other sources emerge that say the same thing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- All we can say is under reactions that Trump said this. He certainly isn't reliable enough to put it under causes. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You also cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL which clearly is met because multiple major reliable news sources have covered Trump’s claim from CNN to Politico to The Hill to Hindustan Times. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The WP:EXCEPTIONAL part is not that Trump said it, but the contents of what he said. TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT would only apply if it were a minority view that he made this comment. He is a major public, international figure so it is appropriate that this is under the international reactions section. Obviously it shouldn't be under causes. Similarly, since this is under reactions, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to the claim that Trump said this, not the claim he is actually making. There are multiple verifiable sources that he made this comment so there is no problem. Scleractinian (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not really how WP:WEIGHT works. Trump's opinion that it was an attack is the viewpoint of a tiny minority at this point. WP:WEIGHT addresses this multiple times:
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
,Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth).
, andIf a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I never applied WP:EXCEPTIONAL with regards to whether this should be in the reactions section, only to the first argument about whether this should be in the cause section. That's why I was incredulous that anyone would say that it was met. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not really how WP:WEIGHT works. Trump's opinion that it was an attack is the viewpoint of a tiny minority at this point. WP:WEIGHT addresses this multiple times:
- WP:WEIGHT would only apply if it were a minority view that he made this comment. He is a major public, international figure so it is appropriate that this is under the international reactions section. Obviously it shouldn't be under causes. Similarly, since this is under reactions, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to the claim that Trump said this, not the claim he is actually making. There are multiple verifiable sources that he made this comment so there is no problem. Scleractinian (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Reposting my edit summary from last night on here for posterity. Trump isn't an expert on explosions. Generals tend to see everything as a nail. Let's not keep this until there are more evidence from official sources. --intelatitalk 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Bait30 Here is the discussion. I see consensus of three people saying not to keep the quote.--intelatitalk 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also see consensus of three people (me, FunkMonk, and Trekker) saying to include in international responses section. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That reading of their comments is a bit of a stretch. Even if what they meant was that it should be included (I'll let them clarify for themselves), that doesn't constitute WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to keep a brief mention in the "international responses" that Trump said that. Like it or not, the president of the USA is a very influential person, and even if the theory that it was a bomb is ridiculous, the fact that he floated that theory is notable and it's well enough cited. --Slashme (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The off-the-cuff speculation of a person with a penchant for making ill-informed statements shot from the hip and for telling untruths on a daily basis is WP:UNDUE, no matter what office that person holds, unless the fact that he said it itself becomes a significant aspect of the story. Take it out. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with Agricolae here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I removed it. If we have this in the article at this point, one of two things is going to happen: (1) we violate WP:WEIGHT by not properly noting how much of a minority viewpoint this is (as was the case), or (2) we dedicate an entire paragraph to basically calling Trump out for having what is at this point an extreme minority viewpoint. Obviously, neither option is acceptable. There is at present no WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion and
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
per WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- It is a sub-story-line that is more about the person who said it than the event, and such stories tend to last only until the next dubious tweet. A year from now when someone comes looking for information on the actual event, this is unlikely to give them the slightest insight. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree and while Trump may be an important figure that doesn’t mean that everything he says needs to be Included especially if no other prominent figures have agreed with what he has said.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It is a sub-story-line that is more about the person who said it than the event, and such stories tend to last only until the next dubious tweet. A year from now when someone comes looking for information on the actual event, this is unlikely to give them the slightest insight. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I removed it. If we have this in the article at this point, one of two things is going to happen: (1) we violate WP:WEIGHT by not properly noting how much of a minority viewpoint this is (as was the case), or (2) we dedicate an entire paragraph to basically calling Trump out for having what is at this point an extreme minority viewpoint. Obviously, neither option is acceptable. There is at present no WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion and
- I concur with Agricolae here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Beirut explosion seems a catastrophic 'accident similar to 2001 Toulouse fertilizer factory blast,' detonations expert tells RT — RT World News". State Of Press. 5 August 2020. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
- ^ Gilbert, David (5 August 2020). "Trump Fuels Conspiracy Theories By Claiming Beirut Explosion Was Caused By 'A Bomb'". Getaka News. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
- ^ Relman, Eliza. "Trump says Beirut explosion 'looks like a terrible attack,' contradicting Lebanese officials who implied it was likely an accident". Business Insider. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
- ^ "US defense officials contradict Trump: No indication yet of attack in Beirut". CNN. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
Background and Cause have duplicate info
Background and Cause sections basically have the same info.
On 23 September 2013, Moldovan-flagged cargo ship MV Rhosus set sail from Batumi, Georgia, to Beira, Mozambique, carrying 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. During the trip, it was forced to port in Beirut with engine problems. When it was found unseaworthy, the owners and charterers abandoned it, its crew were repatriated, and its cargo brought ashore for storage. The ammonium nitrate was then stored at the warehouses without safety measures for the next six years.
This is from the Background section, while this is from the Cause section:
There were warehouses in the port that stored explosives and chemicals including nitrates, common components of fertilizers and explosives. The Director General of Public Security stated the explosion was caused by ammonium nitrate that was confiscated from Rhosus and stored for years until the explosion. A security source has stated that the explosion was caused during welding work on a hole in a warehouse.
I propose merging these sections, or removing the part from the Background section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be removed from the Causes section, since it might be the cause, but it might not. It's far more relevant, in my opinion, in the Background section. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, Cause should be before Effect (Explosions). TGCP (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
one Explosion
I'd say it was one explosion and everything else way to small to compare. Better change Lemma. --Itu (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sources say otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- After the initial fire, the first explosion was pretty big (1m23s here), causing so many people (even miles away) to film the next, bigger fire and catching the next, much bigger explosion on footage. The phrase "A first, smaller, explosion" is a little misleading, and should be replaced with a size number if available, or at least indicating its absolute size. It seems comparable to the smaller entries on the Ammonium nitrate disasters main list. TGCP (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a separate issue, not related to the singular/plural Title discussion below.
- Rough timeline, which should be available in some of the many written sources;
- 0m0s fire well underway
- 1m23s first explosion. Many white objects thrown into the air. Orange fire breaks through roof and smoke
- {other videos show "sparkles" in the smoke}
- 1m57s second explosion, much larger.
- So there is about 35 seconds between the two explosions. TGCP (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate article in "Related Articles" view
There are two duplicated articles "2020 Beirut explosion" in "Related Articles view" Discuss to delete the one. The Supermind (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
MV Rhosus
More information on the vessel which brought the ammonium nitrate to Beirut in 2014 can be found:(here) note: the photos of the ship located on this site are not public domain, and cannot be used here.Juneau Mike (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- There's a barnstar on offer at WT:Ships#MV Rhosus if anyone wants to write an article on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Got some info on the shady owner of the ship, Russian Igor Grechushkin who abandoned his crew on the vessel that could best be called a 'floating bomb', refusing to pay port fees and wages.
- Little is known about the Russian owner of the Rhosus, the cargo ship impounded in Beirut in 2014, whose captain had referred to its freight of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate fertiliser as a "floating bomb".
- That ammonium nitrate is believed to have fuelled the devastating explosion that has left more than 100 dead in Beirut.
- Former crew members said the ship was owned by Igor Grechushkin (Игорь Гречушкин), a Russian national believed to be living in Cyprus, where he holds either citizenship or residency. Grechushkin, a native of the far-eastern city of Khabarovsk, is reported to have managed Teto Shipping, which owned the Rhosus.
- The ship arrived in Beirut in 2013 while sailing from Georgia to Mozambique. It was prevented from leaving the Beirut port in 2014 over an unspecified dispute, either because the ship was deemed not seaworthy or because the owner had failed to pay the necessary fees to the port.
- It was then that Grechushkin is said to have walked away from the ship, refusing to answer calls or negotiate with the port authorities for the release of his sailors.
- In complaints to the press in 2014, former crew members said they had been "abandoned" in Beirut and had not been paid their wages for nearly a year. "The owner [of the ship] has virtually abandoned the ship and its crew," wrote the ship’s former captain. "Salaries are not paid, supplies are not purchased. The shipowner has refused the cargo."
- A deleted LinkedIn profile lists Grechushkin as living in Cyprus and as working as a manager at Unimar Service Ltd. Calls to a company with a similar name and profile, Unimar Safety Services and Equipment, on Wednesday were not answered. Calls to a number for Grechushkin listed by the aggrieved crew members also went unanswered.
- The letter, which was sent to Russian journalists by the Rhosus's former captain in 2014, also complained about being "held hostage" onboard the ship. The Beirut authorities "don't want an abandoned ship at port, especially with a cargo of explosives, which is what ammonium nitrate is. That is, this is a floating bomb, and the crew is a hostage aboard this bomb.""
- The mostly Ukrainian crew were held onboard the ship for nearly a year before they were released. The ammonium nitrate was confiscated and held at the port in a warehouse.
- The Russian television station Ren TV published a photograph on Wednesday of a man it said was Grechushkin in tight-fitting jeans and sunglasses sitting astride a motorcycle. The television station did not indicate the source of the photograph.
- Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/aug/04/beirut-explosion-huge-blast-port-lebanon-capital?page=with:block-5f2aa25f8f089d9b758a73d6#block-5f2aa25f8f089d9b758a73d6
- --Shandristhe azylean 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pictures of the Ukrainian crew members, as well as the captain himself and his wife. https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/first-pictures-emerge-of-a-russian-businessman-whose-ammonium-nitrate-cargo-detonated-in-the-port-of-beirut/ --Shandristhe azylean 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- A very interesting interview (in Russian) with one of the senior crew members who tells the whole story. What's a bit surprising is that he blames the Lebanese authorities for not disposing of the cargo and that the country should "suit itself" for what happened. https://www.sibreal.org/a/30767538.html --Shandristhe azylean 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pictures of the Ukrainian crew members, as well as the captain himself and his wife. https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/first-pictures-emerge-of-a-russian-businessman-whose-ammonium-nitrate-cargo-detonated-in-the-port-of-beirut/ --Shandristhe azylean 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
#BeirutBlast, Beirut Blast, redirect?
On Twitter and Facebook, the hashtag #BeirutBlast has been used to describe these explosions. I think there should be redirect pages with those titles that send users here. Would that be appropriate, and if so, how would one go about creating redirect pages? RobotGoggles (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Satellite images
What about satellite images by planetlabs? Category:Images_by_Planet_Labs https://mobile.twitter.com/planetlabs/status/1291010972983992320 Kroger4 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Planet Lab licenses their image using the noncommercial usage restriction, so they are incompatible with wikimedia commons.--intelatitalk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked if they will relicense them. Worth a shot Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Casualties by nationality
Enumerating the number of casualties by nationality is unnecessary and adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic (i.e. the explosions themselves). The experience from other articles is that this kind of list has a tendency to become something of a scoreboard. It should be removed, or at the very least moved to a footnote much like the one for countries offering aid. TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I use the legal precedent of other articles. This article suggests a table of fatalities. I think this is typical of other disasters-intelatitalk 15:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- A table is a categorically terrible idea. That's precisely the kind of scoreboard we want to avoid. It would almost certainly result in a bunch of WP:FLAGCRUFT being added as well. There is no reason to categorize casualties by nationality, any more than there is to categorize them by sex or age. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- A table is a categorically terrible idea. That's precisely the kind of scoreboard we want to avoid. It would almost certainly result in a bunch of WP:FLAGCRUFT being added as well. There is no reason to categorize casualties by nationality, any more than there is to categorize them by sex or age. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- For similar reasons, we should think about moving the list of countries that have given aid into a footnote, especially since more European and Middle Eastern countries are likely to join in.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
![]() | This edit request to 2020 Beirut explosions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the beginning of the page "Estimates of equivalent effects for the explosion range from 100 to 3,000 tonnes (110 to 3,300 short tons) of TNT." should be changed to "Estimates of equivalent effects for the explosion using G. I. Taylor's method ranges from 100 to 3,000 tonnes (110 to 3,300 short tons) of TNT. While using the effective relativeness factor for ammonium nitrate which is 0.42, the energy released by the explosion is 2.75×0.42=1.155 kilotons of TNT." Fj3ks1d (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for those figures? Otherwise it's a
for WP:OR--intelatitalk 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 5 August 2020
![]() | The request to rename this article to 2020 Beirut explosion has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
2020 Beirut explosions → 2020 Beirut explosion – Drop the S. "Explosions" refers to multiple explosions, either at different locations or different times. This was one single explosion that got bigger and bigger in a span of a few minutes. Furthermore, reliable sources, including all main stream media are calling it "Beirut explosion" without an S. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure how a single explosion can get bigger and bigger over time. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment SamirMamdouh, See here (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/04/world/middleeast/beirut-explosion-damage.html). It was clearly two explosions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Zoozaz1, the New York Times article you shared is called Mapping the Damage From the Beirut Explosion, singular. WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gonzo fan2007, That is true, but on the homepage from where I clicked on it it was plural. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Zoozaz1, the New York Times article you shared is called Mapping the Damage From the Beirut Explosion, singular. WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
*Strongly Oppose - It was clearly a smaller explosion that caused a bigger explosion. While the damage comes from the main explosion, multiple happened. Albertkaloo (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Weak Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME Albertkaloo (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose At the very least, video suggest at least two explosions.-intelatitalk 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- Oppose Multiple explosions is plural, even if they happened in quick succession &/or in the same location. Jim Michael (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose—as of right now, the sourced information in the article indicates there were multiple explosions. So the plural form is consistent with the scope of the article as it stands, and would also include the proximate and earlier events/explosion(s) that led up to the very large detonation of the ammonium nitrate storage cache. N2e (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Everyone who opposed this so far is opposing it based on my argument, while not discussing the fact that reliable sources are calling it an explosion. In singular term. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME and nominator. The reality of the situation (one minor blast and then one large blast) doesn't change what the common name of this subject. After a review of the 92 sources in this article, I think only two use the plural "explosions". The remaining refer to it as the "explosion" or "blast". The s should clearly be dropped from explosion. Also important to note that almost no other article uses "explosions", even one's where there were multiple blasts. See 1944 Bombay explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose per aforementioned comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PLURAL which states that "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles ... This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.". And the fact of the matter in this case is that there was one big explosion which did the major damage. Secondary explosions and fires do not warrant a special title. Moreover, the current title gives the misleading impression that there were separate events when there was clearly just one. Finally, the article was first created as 2020 Beirut port explosion and has been moved several times without consensus. If there is no consensus, we should return to the original title. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- To demonstrate precedent, consider September 11 attacks and Collapse of the World Trade Center. Plural is reasonable in the first case because there were separate attacks on four different targets in different places. Singular is appropriate in the second case because, even though the two towers collapsed separately, it was essentially one event in one place. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a misinterpretation of WP:PLURAL. The World Trade Center collapse is treated as a singular event because the two towers were part of the same building - the World Trade Center. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- First off, three towers, as WTC7 went down as well. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were all separate buildings: WTC1 was finished in 1970, WTC2 was finished in 1972, and WTC7 was finished in 1987. At best, they were part of the same complex, but definitely not the same building. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Same complex - amounts to the same thing. It's a poor example. Deb (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- First off, three towers, as WTC7 went down as well. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were all separate buildings: WTC1 was finished in 1970, WTC2 was finished in 1972, and WTC7 was finished in 1987. At best, they were part of the same complex, but definitely not the same building. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's a misinterpretation of WP:PLURAL. The World Trade Center collapse is treated as a singular event because the two towers were part of the same building - the World Trade Center. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- To demonstrate precedent, consider September 11 attacks and Collapse of the World Trade Center. Plural is reasonable in the first case because there were separate attacks on four different targets in different places. Singular is appropriate in the second case because, even though the two towers collapsed separately, it was essentially one event in one place. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Albertkaloo, intelati, N2e and Solavirum, you all opposed because there was more than one explosion. No one is arguing that there wasn't, but the fact is that per WP:COMMONNAME, almost every reliable source, including almost all in this article, use the singular, explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Reliable sources all seem to refer to it in the singular (explosion, blast, etc).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: There were multiple explosions, and really it doesn't matter. This is what redirects are for. --Slashme (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support It was one massive explosion. Without that, it would be a story about a small fire. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Although technically two explosions, most video evidence shows one big blast and is referred to as an explosion (singular), it is also easier to find and look up. 199.202.95.19 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose there were clearly two distinct explosions, the second one much larger than the first. Plural is definitely the proper usage here. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. This is the more factually accurate title. The proposed move target is however a perfectly reasonable search term and should serve as a redirect to here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Support Whatever primarily explosion did take place, it would not be notable apart from having triggered the fire and the subsequent explosion. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 18:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Support "The death toll from the massive explosion in Beirut has risen to 135, with some 5,000 wounded and tens still missing, Lebanon's health minister told Al Manar television."[1] (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support and not just by the conclusive directions laid out in WP:COMMONNAME but because choosing the plural, now that the smoke has cleared, literally and figuratively, would simply be wrong. There was one explosion that simply happened in stages, exactly like, for instance, the explosion of a thermonuclear device: the fission bomb explodes firstg acting as the "primary" bomb and the fusion capsule then explodes as the "secondary" one. We'd never consider denoting one thermonuclear explosion in the plural. The Beirut explosion started by a preliminary explosion that clearly -and almost immediately- caused the second one. In 2001, we had terrorist attacks against the U.S., rightly in the plural; in 2005, we had the London bombings, incidents separate and unrelated in terms of causation, again rightly in the plural; in 2020, we have an explosion in Beirut. -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per WP:COMMONNAME and the sources cited by others. While there were two explosions, this article is more about an singular event. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support change of name, since the source of the explosions was concentrated in and around the same general site where ammonium nitrate was being stored, a flameable chemical substance.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yes, the second explosion was a knock-on but it was still a second explosion. Deb (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - "Explosions" implies there were multiple explosions in different locations across the city while there was only one site. Most sources also refer to the event as "explosion". TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support, the pyrotechnic events leading up to the explosion probably would not have been termed an explosion or explosions without the big explosion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - though there were two explosions, only the latter one was substantial. It might also be worth considering "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" (similar to what Jmncnj07 suggested below), which still references multiple explosions, but avoids implying that there were multiple separate explosions all around the city (which is my main issue with the current title). –Sonicwave talk 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - EDIT: changed to support. I disagree that reliable sources are calling it one explosion with any broad consensus. For example, a NYT article calls them "explosions". I'm not too opposed to scoping down Beirut to "Port of Beirut", but since the devastation impacted much of the city's core, it might be limiting. We should follow leading newspapers, which are not scoping it down with any majority. Prad Nelluru (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Prad Nelluru, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Politico, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeerah, Fox News, and on and on all use the singular. As I said above, only a couple of the 90+ sources in the article use the plural. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, that's convincing. I'm going to switch to support. Prad Nelluru (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Prad Nelluru, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Politico, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeerah, Fox News, and on and on all use the singular. As I said above, only a couple of the 90+ sources in the article use the plural. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment check out simple search of "Beirut" in Google News, easily 95%+ uses the singular "blast" or "explosion" when describing the event itself, with most articles explaining the series of events that includes multiple explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" seems to address the issues from both sides the best, but for this proposal specifically I definitely prefer "2020 Beirut explosion" since "explosions" really would imply (in my mind) some series of explosions across the city. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the second explosion is really the subject of the article. The first one is comparatively trivial except for the fact that it caused the second one. --WMSR (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The first explosion is the one that destroyed that chemical warehouse, while the second explosion is the one that destroyed most of the city. Both are the integral part of all of this event. Chongkian (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lol this is predicting that there will be more explosions... kinda scary --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiothenes (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as there were clearly two distinct explosions.5225C (talk • contributions) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - it was one major event, plural indicates multiple separate events of similar scale. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support The singular title is preferred as it happen in a single city. I think the article would be rename to 2020 Port of Beirut explosion to be more precise. 36.77.94.46 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - the lead states "On the evening of 4 August 2020, at 18:08 EEST, an extremely powerful explosion occurred in the city of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." Regardless of what the cause was, the notable event was a single explosion. That is the topic of this article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Medium Support The Tunguska event article contains multiple events, but only the titular one clearly matters most. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support while technically there were some smaller explosions at first, the cause of all the damage, and the reason this article exists at all, is the one massive blast at the end Hongooi (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Only one explosion caused all of that damage we've seen in Beirut yesterday. Love of Corey (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - The severity of the second explosion does not change the fact that there were two, individually distinguishable explosions. The first explosion seems to have been fireworks, and the second ammonium nitrate; they both apparently detonated from different accelerants, although not confirmed. GyozaDumpling (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)- Support (further consideration) GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose - There were two explosions. Even if the second one was much stronger than the other, there were most certainly two. Indeed, most people caught the second explosion on camera because they saw or heard the first one. RBolton123 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Bellingcat have investigated this and say "Although there were claims of explosions at other locations, there does not appear to be images or videos of this, and it is likely these reports were simply a result of the vast explosion at the docks." There was one single large explosion that is the significant subject of this article. David Crayford ☎ 07:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support "Explosions" makes it sound like there were many separate explosions within the city, which is not the case. Even if there were multiple explosions inside the building, events like this are referred to as one singular event. Compare that with the 2015 Tianjin explosions, which had many explosions over multiple days. Nihlus 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support If it is in the singular, it is more accurate. While there were two explosions, the first one by itself is not very significant and would be nothing without the second, much larger one. Elevating the first explosion to the level of the second in terms of importance takes away from the focus of the article. It's about a disaster whose most important element is the larger explosion, of which the death toll is high and the consequences are disastrous. The scope of the article should revolve around the main disaster. The article for the 2015 Tianjin explosions deserves a plural in the title because the two were comparable to each other in magnitude and took place mere minutes apart from each other. I also cite WP:COMMONNAME because nearly every single source I look at uses the term "explosion", not "explosions" (unless specifically speaking within the scope of both of them, which is really the only time the first one is ever discussed, which isn't common because it isn't as significant). This article itself, at least in the form I see it at present, uses the singular itself in the text more than the plural. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team M (talk | worse talk) 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support "2020 Beirut Explosions" could imply that there were multiple explosions throughout the course of 2020, rather than multiple consecutive explosions in one place on one date. To avoid confusion, it is most likely better to take off the S. Squid45 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose There were two explosions, but the focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion. That's why some of them use the singular form. This article covers the entire event, therefore the title is plural. The New York Times has an article covering the entire situation as well, and their title also uses plural. Mikalagrand (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mikalagrand, from WP:COMMONNAME:
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)
. If anything, your oppose rationale makes the case for the singular, as you saidthe focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion
, thus we would use the title that is most commonly related to the event (the big, singular, explosion), versus the literal name. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mikalagrand, from WP:COMMONNAME:
- Support The article has shifted from the focus of both explosions to the single, more deadly one. The first explosion can still be included, as that's key to what caused the second one. Admanny (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This is a single incident causing multiple explosions SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This was an incident and many major news reports show that there were two explosions. The cause is still not clear. I think its better to wait and see the outcoome of the investigation.95.219.151.195 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Even if there were smaller explosions in the same event, the major part of the event is a single large explosion. It wouldn't make sense to call an earthquake and all its aftershocks "earthquakes." It's all one event and making the title plural just adds unnecessary ambiguity. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of earthquakes: The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes started with a M 6.4, then a 7.1 one day later. The 7.1 was at the forefront of national attention, but didn't change the fact that there were multiple (notable) earthquakes. Same with these explosions. There was the first, much smaller and relatively inconsequential "6.4" explosion, then the damaging "7.1" explosion a few seconds later. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- GyozaDumpling, seems like the sources for your example note multiple, big earthquakes, separated by days apart: Californians’ Alert Apps Didn’t Sound for 2 Big Earthquakes. Why Not?; New York Times; July 8, 2019. Hardly an apt comparison, and if anything, proves the opposite point that you are trying to make. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gonzo_fan2007, and somehow Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy suffices? They talk about an earthquake and its aftershocks not being called "earthquakes", but what happened in Beirut is not comparable to an initial "earthquake" followed by "aftershocks", it was an event with a "foreshock" and "mainshock", in seismology terms. This changes the title. If the second 7.1 hadn't happened, it would be the Ridgecrest earthquake. If the second explosion in Beirut hadn't happened, it would be the Beirut explosion. Simple. I fail to see how that comparison is lacking. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- GyozaDumpling, my assumption was that Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy was referencing the typical experience of a large earthquake surrounded by small aftershocks, not an experience that the media described as "two big earthquakes". Take a look at Lists of earthquakes: only 5 articles in that list use "earthquakes" in the title, while the remaining 100+ article use the singular "earthquake" (where I can only assume that most of those earthquakes included multiple, big tremors). Again, like every oppose in this discussion, you are basing your rationale off of the fact that more than 1 explosion occurred, which no one is debating. The fact of the matter in that this event (the explosions, the resulting damage and death, and the international response) is being referred to as the Beirut explosion or the Beirut blast by almost all reliable sources. And when we determine the correct name of an article, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the criteria we use. Any other criteria is editorializing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gonzo_fan2007 I have changed my stance on the title, but I still don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. If the 6.4 happened after the 7.1, it would be "earthquake". Because it happened before, it's "earthquakes". Qwaiiplayer is suggesting a typical earthquake-aftershock sequence, which isn't comparable to the "foreshock-mainshock" explosions. If we're gonna compare earthquake sequences to explosions then at least get the order right, because it makes a difference. It's just a weird comparison. GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough GyozaDumpling. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gonzo_fan2007 I have changed my stance on the title, but I still don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. If the 6.4 happened after the 7.1, it would be "earthquake". Because it happened before, it's "earthquakes". Qwaiiplayer is suggesting a typical earthquake-aftershock sequence, which isn't comparable to the "foreshock-mainshock" explosions. If we're gonna compare earthquake sequences to explosions then at least get the order right, because it makes a difference. It's just a weird comparison. GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- GyozaDumpling, my assumption was that Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy was referencing the typical experience of a large earthquake surrounded by small aftershocks, not an experience that the media described as "two big earthquakes". Take a look at Lists of earthquakes: only 5 articles in that list use "earthquakes" in the title, while the remaining 100+ article use the singular "earthquake" (where I can only assume that most of those earthquakes included multiple, big tremors). Again, like every oppose in this discussion, you are basing your rationale off of the fact that more than 1 explosion occurred, which no one is debating. The fact of the matter in that this event (the explosions, the resulting damage and death, and the international response) is being referred to as the Beirut explosion or the Beirut blast by almost all reliable sources. And when we determine the correct name of an article, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the criteria we use. Any other criteria is editorializing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Gonzo_fan2007, and somehow Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy suffices? They talk about an earthquake and its aftershocks not being called "earthquakes", but what happened in Beirut is not comparable to an initial "earthquake" followed by "aftershocks", it was an event with a "foreshock" and "mainshock", in seismology terms. This changes the title. If the second 7.1 hadn't happened, it would be the Ridgecrest earthquake. If the second explosion in Beirut hadn't happened, it would be the Beirut explosion. Simple. I fail to see how that comparison is lacking. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- GyozaDumpling, seems like the sources for your example note multiple, big earthquakes, separated by days apart: Californians’ Alert Apps Didn’t Sound for 2 Big Earthquakes. Why Not?; New York Times; July 8, 2019. Hardly an apt comparison, and if anything, proves the opposite point that you are trying to make. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of earthquakes: The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes started with a M 6.4, then a 7.1 one day later. The 7.1 was at the forefront of national attention, but didn't change the fact that there were multiple (notable) earthquakes. Same with these explosions. There was the first, much smaller and relatively inconsequential "6.4" explosion, then the damaging "7.1" explosion a few seconds later. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support for consistency with most sources and as the main explosion was much more powerful and hence the primary focus of the article, with the lesser explosions serving as context for it. StuartH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose There was more than one explosion, so the article title should remain unchanged. Roman Biggus (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support for two reasons. (a) By the Wikipedia principle that one should generally use the term that that something is usually known by (it's clear that news organisations etc. are using 'blast' or 'explosion' in the singular). (b) The two explosions weren't all that happened: there was a fire as well, so if one were to include the first (and non-notable) explosion in the title, then one could argue that the title could be 2020 Beirut fire and explosions. And maybe by extension 2013-2020 Beirut alleged poor handling of volatile substances followed by a fire and explosions and thoughts and prayers.--A bit iffy (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- A bit iffy, gonna add a redlink just in case someone wants to make that a redirect 2013-2020 Beirut alleged poor handling of volatile substances followed by a fire and explosions and thoughts and prayers hahaha. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - there was just one notable event here, the big explosion. The rest is just backstory. Agricolae (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Why do we have an entire page of discussion over the existence of a single letter? ApChrKey Talk 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because it's Wikipedia! It is what we do :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - For reasons already stated by others and because I came to this page the day it happened and "Explosions" initially had me thinking there had been another significant explosion (and I had already known about the smaller ones leading up to it). The large/main explosion is obviously what people are coming to read about. Using the plural can be somewhat misleading (at least it was for me). 104.0.177.76 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support – There was only one notable explosion, which deserves an article on Wikipedia: the big one involving the ammonium nitrate. The rest is just background information. Keep it simple and clear, just as the majority of sources do. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support Its only the big explosion which is notable. People are saying it should stay at plural because there were "two" explosions, but really since there were fireworks involved there were likely several small explosions which contributed.★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The large majority of the disseminated footage with regards to the explosion displays the occurrence of a singular, large, recognisable explosion responsible for the following shock wave; the internal appearance of minute flashes or additional erroneous phenomena does not constitute the classification of the explosion as anything but a singular explosion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Abishe (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Just to note, I have seen the media refering to the catastrophe using both the title "explosion" and "explosions". So, it appears neither is exactly unaccepted. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- SecretName101, no one is saying that the plural isn't used a few times, but 95%+ of the time it is referred to in the singular. See a a simple Google news search of 'Beirut'. I think only one source used "explosions" in it's title in the first 50 results! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There were clearly multiple exlplosions. Singular would simply be factually incorrect. The most prevelant support argument is WP:COMMONNAME, but those citing it appear to neglect the fact that this is not the only criterium we use. In this case it is clearly outweighed by WP:PRECISE.Tvx1 19:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Tvx1, you are misrepresenting WP:PRECISE, which says
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.
In this case, 2020 Beirut explosion is precise enough of a title, we don't need more precision by noting multiple explosions. WP:PRECISION doesn't mean WP:EXACTLYACCURATE, or as another user pointed out above, it would be 2020 Beirut fire and subsequent explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)- And I strongly contest that using a singular noun is precise enough for what even the lead describes as a series of explosions. The singular is just plain wrong.Tvx1 20:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Tvx1, you are misrepresenting WP:PRECISE, which says
- Support - technically there were 2 explosions however the notable explosion was clearly the second one, Had it just been the firework explosion this article wouldn't exist. As the nom says "explosions" gives the impression a previous explosion happened in Beirut before which is not the case. –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per practically all sources, and because the first explosion didn't do much in itself, other than ignite the second one. The second explosion is the subject of the article, the first one is just background, as someone else pointed out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Per COMMONNAME, it's referred to as a singular explosion in almost all news sources because only the larger explosion is significant. Nicereddy (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In order to avoid edit wars
I added some information but someone decided to remove it, so this is the content: Israeli media reported videos of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah from 2016 and 2017, when he threatened to destroy ammonia tanks in the port of Haifa which would cause like a "nuclear" explosion.[2]
You can added it back if it can fit somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z0123456789 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not in the least relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Irrelevant; makes about as much sense as connecting this statement by Katz from around the same time into some bizarre theory about Israel bombing Beirut.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Al Jazeera's comment
in what Al Jazeera English described as an "unusual move"
Seems like an unnecessary note. Shall we remove it? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think it should be kept (though perhaps rephrased?), as we need to explain why the Israeli response is noteworthy. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- As the editor who added the note, support keeping for much the same reasons as TompaDompa; that this is unusual and noteworthy given the state of I-L relations for the past few decades should be noted explicitly in the article. Perhaps a rephrasing could be made to remove the attribution, e.g. "an unusual proposal given that..." or "unusually given that..."--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Remove it. The word "Notably" is sufficient; we go on to provide an explanation - "given that Israel and Lebanon have no diplomatic ties and are technically at war" - and do not need to spoon-feed our readers further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Physics of the grain elevator blocking the shock wave
I find it notable that the giant grain elevator located directly next to the blast zone, AKA Ground Zero seemed to absorb a lot of the destructive forces from the blasts, partially protecting buildings on the side of the elevator opposite the blast. I wonder if there are reliable sources that can either confirm or deny this. So far I have not been able to find such reliable sources, but perhaps other editors can. I am not suggesting any kind of original research, only through reliable sources. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- With a supersonic pressure blast wave like this, buildings on the other side of the grain elevator were not necessarily protected. Depending on geometry you can actually have constructive interference which focuses more blast effects on the lee side of an object. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Could you please explain further? If the grain elevator had not blocked some of the energy, it would have been obliterated. In other words, why did the shock wave of the blast not obliterate the grain elevator? While it was structurally destroyed, it was not eliminated as a structure and remained standing. Simple physics suggest that it absorbed some of the energy of the blast. Other structures in the vicinity would have had a reciprocal effect/benefit. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think he means this: Wave interference. With the building blocking the shockwave, it would be split into two sources on either side of the building, allowing for interference where both shockwaves combine. Dunno how strong of an effect this could have, nor if it would end up stronger, weaker, or roughly equal to an unobstructed blast. It all depends on multiple factors. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Right, it obviously absorbed some of the blast energy, but that doesn't necessarily mean it protected structures immediately on the other side of it. Our intuitions about blasts aren't necessarily a good guide on this due to wave interference factors. There are too many variables to know for sure. And of course we have no sources discussing it, anyway. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think he means this: Wave interference. With the building blocking the shockwave, it would be split into two sources on either side of the building, allowing for interference where both shockwaves combine. Dunno how strong of an effect this could have, nor if it would end up stronger, weaker, or roughly equal to an unobstructed blast. It all depends on multiple factors. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Could you please explain further? If the grain elevator had not blocked some of the energy, it would have been obliterated. In other words, why did the shock wave of the blast not obliterate the grain elevator? While it was structurally destroyed, it was not eliminated as a structure and remained standing. Simple physics suggest that it absorbed some of the energy of the blast. Other structures in the vicinity would have had a reciprocal effect/benefit. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. I was looking for some more research and verifiable sources on the matter one way or another, that's all.Juneau Mike (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Should the article name be changed to be precise?
Given the political and infrastructure climate in Lebanon, would it be better to title the article "2020 Beirut Port Explosion" (or "Explosions"). That allows for the possibility of (let us hope not) other accidental or terroristic explosions at a later date. Jmncnj07 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
68.144.93.30 (talk) Port Beirut Disaster would not be without convention, there's been some talk with the Tianjin page as well —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- If another explosion were to happen in Beirut I would support 100%, but as of now its not needed.★Trekker (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Video could be migrated
Victor Grigas (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Should this video be in the article?
Victor Grigas (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Subtitles? That's pretty dramatic. Is there a link to the BBC giving anymore info on the clip? Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here is the latest URL. (Arabic, not Urdu, given the context.) This is the most human reaction video I've seen to date, and definitely should be an external link. It's accurate down to the shattered glass on the floor.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-53662490/beirut-explosion-moment-blast-hit-bbc-bureau
kencf0618 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we should show things just because we can. Let's keep it sober. There are also videos of mutilated bodies up and down the streets, but we don't need to show it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
No, as it does not show the blast itself. Zezen (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: the video is under a DR discussion at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Beirut Blast as potential title option?
The word blast is appearing more and more in news articles and casual discussions, mostly because it rolls off the tongue and is easier to type and say.
It's also accurate. 2020 Beirut Blast? (Or Blasts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- "blast" means "wind". Not "explosion". GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty weak compared to what it was. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
"Blast" very much does mean "explosion". To "blast" something is to tear it down or break it apart, with explosives.
Regardless, "Beirut Blast" is what the media and public are using to refer to the explosions, particularly in the English world, likely (my speculation) because of the alliteration. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @RobotGoggles: A blast is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:
- 1.) A blowing or strong gust of wind.
- 2a.) A puff or blowing of air through the mouth or nostrils; a breath. Obsolete or archaic.
- 2b.) Angry breath, rage. Obsolete.
- 3a.) The sending of a continuous puff of breath through a wind-instrument, so as to make it sound; the blowing (of a trumpet, or the like); hence, the sound so produced; any similar sound. Also figurative.
- 3b.) figurative. Boasting: cf. the phrase to blow one's own trumpet. Obsolete.
- 3c.) at one blast (Latin uno flatu): at once, at the same time. for a blast: for once.
- 3d.) A company (of huntsmen). Obsolete.
- 4a.) A strong current of air produced artificially.
- 4b.) spec. The strong current of air used in iron-smelting, etc.
- 4c.) in blast, at or in full blast (also transferred): at work, in full operation; also full blast: at full pitch; esp. very loudly. out of blast: not at work, stopped.
- 4d.) figurative. A severe or violent reprimand, outburst, or the like. colloquial (originally U.S.).
- 5.) The sudden stroke of lightning, a thunder-bolt. Obsolete.
- 6.) A sudden infection destructive to vegetable or animal life (formerly attributed to the blowing or breath of some malignant power, foul air, etc.).
- 6a.) Blight; also an insect which causes blight.
- 6b.) spec. A disease of the sugar cane. archaic or Obsolete.
- 6c.) transferred and figurative. Any blasting, withering, or pernicious influence; a curse
- 6d.) A dialectal name of erysipelas.
- 6e.) A flatulent disease in sheep.
- 7.) A blasted bud or blossom; blasted state.
- 8a.) A ‘blowing up’ by gunpowder or other explosive; an explosion.
- 8b.) The quantity of gunpowder or other explosive used in a blasting operation.
- 8c.) A destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outwards from an explosion. Also attributive and in other combinations, as blast wall (see quot. 1852), blast wave; blast-proof adj.
- 8d.) Golf. (Cf. blast v. 5b.)
- 8e.) A party, esp. one that is very noisy or wild. Also, a good time, an enjoyable or exciting experience (chiefly U.S.). slang.
- 9.) Scottish. A smoke (of tobacco). Cf. King James's Counterblast to Tobacco (1604).
- We don't need journalistic shorthand. We have Brighton hotel bombing not "Brighton blast" or "Blast at Tory Party Brighton Beach Bash". GPinkerton (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
68.144.93.30 (talk) Many, MANY historic disasters were given the name by the public, often because they rolled off the tongue best. "Gunpowder Plot" sounds better then "1606 Attempted bombing of the London Parliament" This is the people's encylopedia, and if The Beirut Blast is the vernacular people are going with, discussing, googling, then let us not forsake the peoples word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- If this name continues to grow in popularity I would support, but its too soon to tell.★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
kilotons of TNT equivalent
A Weapons Expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies estimates the yield to be between 200-500 tons TNT equivalent: https://www.sciencealert.com/beirut-s-devastating-port-explosion-100-times-bigger-than-the-mother-of-all-bombs Keep in mind that yield is very difficult to calculate, and nuclear explosions should not be considered. Nuclear weapon yield often doesn't even consider the explosion, rather looking at the radiochemical activity afterward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#calculating_yields_and_controversy
If anybody sees a reliable source for the equivalent kilotons of TNT/Hiroshima bomb, I think it should be added to the article. My rough calculation is 7% of Hiroshima. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- See here "News reports state the explosion was caused by 2750 tons of ammonium nitrate which is roughly equivalent to 1100 tons of TNT." So, it's indeed about 7%. Count Iblis (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a reliable source but it also may overstate since it is based on a simple calculation rather than any measurement of this particular blast. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any reason to doubt that the ammonium nitrate detonation was about a kiloton? I would hate to be the guy who abandoned the boat with that fertilizer on it, or the official who didn't sell it to Syria when they were having their agricultural crisis right now. (Except, I don't know when the abandoned cargo was originally seized.) EllenCT (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The 0.42 factor only applies to ANFO that is properly mixed as an explosive (94% AN and 6% FO). Unmixed Nitroprill (if that's what it was) would have a significantly lower explosive yield. From @ArmsControlWonk (https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1290795532701425664): "The bags say "NITROPRILL HD," which may be a knock-off of Nitropril made by Orica.
- Does anyone have any reason to doubt that the ammonium nitrate detonation was about a kiloton? I would hate to be the guy who abandoned the boat with that fertilizer on it, or the official who didn't sell it to Syria when they were having their agricultural crisis right now. (Except, I don't know when the abandoned cargo was originally seized.) EllenCT (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a reliable source but it also may overstate since it is based on a simple calculation rather than any measurement of this particular blast. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Orica sets the TNT equivalence for fire at 15 percent. .15 x 2750 = 412.5 One more data point that suggests the explosion was a few hundred tons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.129.181 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The RE table in TNT equivalent says that the factor 0.42 applies to AN while for ANFO it is 0.74. Which numbers are correct?--SiriusB (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
This is linked as ammonium nitrate, not ANFO. A dimensional analysis gives me about 1.1 kiloton of TNT (like G.I Taylor Trinity explosion estimate), 0.42 conversion factor for ammonium nitrate gives 1.15 kT of TNT. Theorically in several settings the efficiency factor is lower than 0.42 not higher, it can be as low as 0.15. Finally, if the blast was higher than 1 kT the overpressure would have collapsed the front row of buildings on the other side of the large road, which was not collapsed, some of them had minor collapse but it was the exception not the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.113.81.70 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the mention of TNT equivalent from the lead. Originally it said 1.1 kiloton until it was changed to 2.2 with no explanation. I understand that naively multiplying the relative effectiveness of 0.42 could arrive at the 1.1 kt figure, but I do not think it falls under the WP:CALC exception to original research without a consensus. In any case, I could not find a consensus among reliable sources for either number, so I have removed it for now. There are sources that have a figure anywhere from a few hundred tons to 2.2 kilotons. cathartid - talk 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but you don't get to delete referenced material just because you want to. GliderMaven (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I removed it because it was unreferenced. There was no reference for it in the lead, and no mention of TNT equivalent in the rest of the article. cathartid - talk 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The part I added was simply stating the TNT equivalence of the amount of ammonium nitrate that was quoted, under the relative effectiveness factor, not saying that the blast was actually that much. Like saying, the amount of money in the jar was $1000 US which is equal to xxx CAD, without saying how much was actually spent. SO it is a perfectly correct statement that can be brought back. As a lower bound it is definitely higher than 500 tons, as these blasts were studied in detail in Operation Sailor Hat where the crater and blast were smaller. Questions remain, did all of the AN detonate, and were there other munitions or fuels that added to it. Its all pure speculation until damage at specific blast radius is estimated for PSI Crazytrain411 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- In that case it might be okay, but I think it should have a reference, either for the RE factor or for the calculation itself. cathartid - talk 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
One should also keep in mind that the energy distribution if a conventional detonation strongly differs from that of a nuclear one. The 500 ton Sailor Hat detonations are said to represent the blast of a 1-kiloton nuclear explosion since a nuclear weapon releases only about half of the total energy as blast. On the other hand, we do not know how much of the AN has actually been detonated.--SiriusB (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Does the American offer include financial help? France's does
Does Mike Pompeo's offer to help include allowing the Lebanese authorities (and businesses? Homeowners? Sole proprietors?) to borrow long-term at near-zero rates from the US Federal Reserve? EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's not mentioned in that article. Why do you ask? Is this a rhetorical question or do you have a suggestion to improve this article? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am simply trying to establish how far the US offer for help goes. EllenCT (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Not
France is offering "unconditional" financial help.[2] Thank goodness someone is! EllenCT (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Relief section
Having a separate subsection for the European or Italian response, as was added with this edit does not seem appropriate to me per WP:DUE. The Italian response is already mentioned in the footnote. These additional sections are furthermore pretty poorly written with a tone more befitting a press release or a newspaper than an encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
My first Talk/edit to Wikipedia so excuse my lack of protocol. I just wanted to amend this:
Please kindly add Egypt into the list of the countries that offered aid amidst the crisis, I am personally one the medical professionals involved in the massive aid program and it's disappointing all these other countries are cited except for Egypt. Not for political propaganda reasons, just for statement of facts. Thank you. Verification: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's stop canceling European relief contributions, amplify them and improve. We do not delete the information.--Peter39c (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter39c: While I appreciate the detail, I'm wary of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH. We currently have twenty-two countries in the footnote, and we could easily write a paragraph for each country. For some of the countries more deeply involved, like Iran or France, there could well be several paragraphs. But would an article where the absolute majority of the content is about different countries' relief efforts—as would surely be the case if the detail you've put in for Italy is extended for all countries, especially given the potential for patriotism/nationalism-motivated editing here—be really desirable? And would a reader reading in 2030 really benefit from this excess of information? I'm not sure at all.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Precisely. We run the risk of creating a WP:COATRACK. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the edit summary, I do think it's reasonable that a few specific countries are singled out for more detailed discussion (and by this I mean a single sentence), if we can show that overview RSs focus more on them. Certainly France might deserve a separate sentence given the fact that Macron himself went to Beirut.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Precisely. We run the risk of creating a WP:COATRACK. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In short, we cannot ignore the European relief and the arrival of the French president in full covid-19 emergency. Objectivity must be the cornerstone for writing this article.--Peter39c (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do agree that Macron very much deserves a mention, as AFAIK the only head of state who has actually gone to Beirut, but a single sentence is probably enough. As for other countries, I don't think we should be putting anything in the main text unless they're outstandingly noteworthy in some way.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting that we ignore the relief from European countries – but this is something that is already mentioned in the footnote. The issue here is one of WP:Due weight. As Karaeng Matoaya notes, it might be appropriate to very briefly elaborate on specific countries' relief if WP:RELIABLE sources focus more heavily on those countries' relief. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
should the mention of the dutch rescue crew that is currently located under the international subsection of the reactions section be moved up to the relief operations section, stay where it is, be relocated elsewhere, or be removed entirely? currently, the photo of the dutch urban search and rescue team is located in the relief operations section and not the reactions section. dying (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's already in the footnote which lists countries that have sent rescue teams. I removed the duplicate mention. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Stop deleting information in Casualties section
Who or whome delete many information in the Casualties section.Editors behalf of any country,organization or party could add information.But they should not delete information of others. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- The number of casualties from different countries is given in the footnote in the first paragraph of this section. This information has not been deleted, only moved. TompaDompa (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Very Loud Explosion
All Lebanese people heard the Explosion except Hassan Nasrallah, who hidden and living Underground. People in Nicosia heard the Explosion 150 km away[1]. 2001:56A:F0E1:6000:44AB:CA36:8889:936C (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear what change(s) you might be suggesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The blast was felt 150 miles away from Lebanon". CNN. 4 August 2020.
Replace Moshe Faiglin's response with more relevant Netanyahu's and Reuven Rivlin's under the Reactions
I think we should remove Moshe Faiglin's response, as i think it is undue weight due to the fact he is a *former* member of parliament, and is largely associated with the party Zehut, which currently has exactly 0 seats in the Knesset and is largely fringe. We should replace it with more relevant Netanyahu's and Reuven Rivlin's response. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/we-share-your-pain-israel-offers-aid-to-lebanon-after-beirut-port-blast-1.9046764 https://twitter.com/ruvirivlin/status/1290734371339739136 IveGonePostal (talk)
- I removed Faiglin. Faiglin isn't even a backbencher anymore he is out of parliament all together. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Azadi Tower with Flag of Lebanon
hello this is Azadi tower from Tehran-Iran which you can put in Article thank you--Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Azadi_Tower_2020_Beirut_explosions.jpg/350px-Azadi_Tower_2020_Beirut_explosions.jpg)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseina051311 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoseina051311: Added, thanks!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Dying: why did you remove photo? --Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoseina051311: after a cursory search, the image appeared to me to be produced by fars news agency, and i could not find any mention of such works being free for use. after seeing your message, i did a little more digging, and it appears that i was wrong; works by fars news agency are licensed under a creative commons attribution 4.0 international license. it was my fault that i had not realized that during my initial search, and for that, i apologize.
- however, that license also requires that any changes be indicated, and it appears that a portion of the picture was cropped to remove the credit. if you were to upload the picture unadulterated, i see no issue with reinstating the picture. thanks for raising the issue. dying (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoseina051311: @Dying: I've gone ahead and restored the credits and reinstated the picture.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- great, thanks, Karaeng Matoaya! i was sad when i commented out that picture believing that it couldn't be used, so i'm glad that this was resolved. also, thanks to Hoseina051311 for finding it in the first place. dying (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoseina051311: @Dying: I've gone ahead and restored the credits and reinstated the picture.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Dying: why did you remove photo? --Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's appropriate to devote so much space for gestures by two countries that many Lebanese would see as their enemies (Israel to one camp, Iran to the other). I don't even think we need to show it at all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've reduced the images to the normal small sizes created by the gallery tag, which makes them take up much less of the article visually speaking. And while I see your point, I'd rather be inclined to say that the fact that Israel and Iran are two of the most important countries in Lebanon's geopolitical situation means that the images are worth keeping.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Either that, or show such gestures from more neutral countries. To many Lebanese, either image is like twisting the knife. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- regardless of your opinion on it, it is historically significant and should be kept. IveGonePostal (talk)
- How is it "historically important"? It is an empty gesture to score points, not actual help. At the same time, Syria is receiving the wounded, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- i agree with Karaeng Matoaya and IveGonePostal; they seem especially relevant considering the context.
- also, i need to apologize again to Hoseina051311, since i now see that this image was on commons and the fars template had been correctly applied to conform with the requirements of the copyright license before i had commented out the photo. i am not sure how i missed that this file was on commons before, as that would have made confirming the copyright status so much easier. anyway, that was completely my fault. sorry about that! dying (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- How is it "historically important"? It is an empty gesture to score points, not actual help. At the same time, Syria is receiving the wounded, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- regardless of your opinion on it, it is historically significant and should be kept. IveGonePostal (talk)
- Either that, or show such gestures from more neutral countries. To many Lebanese, either image is like twisting the knife. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've reduced the images to the normal small sizes created by the gallery tag, which makes them take up much less of the article visually speaking. And while I see your point, I'd rather be inclined to say that the fact that Israel and Iran are two of the most important countries in Lebanon's geopolitical situation means that the images are worth keeping.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
#We do not want
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Beirut_explosions&diff=971470853&oldid=971470832 Should # we do not want remain or should it notBaratiiman (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, I say leave it out. No indication of long-term significance (yet). Does not seem likely to pass WP:10YT. TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Name change
Although there may have been two explosions, if you look at the video footage, I agree that it makes sense to rename the default to "beirut explosion". People are more likely to associate a single event there. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:CA:574E:D609:7111 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- this is being discussed above. it may be better to contribute to that discussion than begin a new section about it. if you wish to delete this section, i give you my permission to also delete this comment of mine. dying (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Additional Source
The following newsletter in PDF format includes on page 3 a brief essay written and published in October, 2015 by the lawyers who represented the crew of the M/V Rhosus and eventually secured their freedom. As such it is a primary source about the ship and the situation. I'm just too tired to incorporate it into this article. HTH --Eliyahu S Talk 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- i believe much of what is substantial is already included in the article, and the source is cited as reference 16 as of this edit. is there anything else that you feel should be included? dying (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
68.144.93.30 (talk) TheBrodsterBoy from reddit, I was the one who found that article in the first place, credit where credit is due —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Warehouse door welding
I notice that the article assumes a dispute about which warehouse door the workers were working on. However saying sources don't imply any connection to a warehouse. However, that is a poor assumption. It's not necessary that every source will detail the whole thing. If it's known that welding at a door, no matter the building, caused it, and someone simply says welding at a door caused it, then it can't be presumed to be contradictory.
Is there any evidence of sources saying welding at any other building caused it or even if other buildings were under welding. If there's no contradiction, then this article is making up one. And it seems strange to me. Everyone doesn't have to be completely detailed, nor that makes them contradictory. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @LéKashmiriSocialiste: i am the one to blame for the wording. initially i added that the welding was at a door of the warehouse, because that is what a source stated. however, after reading a lot more about the starting of the fire, i noticed that a decent number of sources were subscribing to the theory that fireworks were initially lit before the ammonium nitrate was, and since it was not clear whether the fireworks and the ammonium nitrate were stored in the same warehouse, i noticed that not all sources actually had stated that the door being welded was that of the warehouse storing the ammonium nitrate, so i don't know if the sources that did state that were accurately describing what the lbci reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection (or alternatively, whether the lbci was accurately describing what the attendees of the briefing reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection). after all, i was guilty of making the connection myself before being aware that i had made it, and did not know if some of the sources had too.
- so i made an edit to state that the connection implied by some sources may not have been present in others. because at least one editor did not understand which "the" i was referring to, i added more detail to explain what i was referring to. i did not mean to imply that there was a dispute between sources, and i apologize if that is the case. i merely wished to note that although some sources made the connection, perhaps inadvertently, it was not a connection expressed by all sources, and i did not want any readers to assume that the connection should necessarily be made. i did not want to appear as if i was presenting original research, so my wording was focused on what the sources reported. however, it was difficult to do so without treading in original research territory. if you know of a better way to present this, or believe that, under wikipedia policies or guidelines, it should not be presented at all, please feel free to edit my words to how you see fit.
- also, i think i encountered at least one source that mentioned that the warehouses were in a general state of disrepair, so it was not inconceivable to me that welders were brought to repair a number of warehouses. unfortunately, i cannot remember at all where i read it, though i don't recall thinking that it was an unreliable source. dying (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just because someone doesn't state which door, doesn't mean they mean another door. Even if you do think it does, there is no need to mention whether it was the one with the ammonium nitrate or some other warehouse. Because we'll be making our own assumptions of what it meant.
- And fireworks actually means firecrackers bursting. If you have sources about crackers being set on fire then please add it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- i was neither trying to imply that the other sources meant that another door was being worked on, nor do i believe that. i merely wanted to note that other sources did not explicitly state that the door being worked on was a door of the warehouse containing the ammonium nitrate. i am unaware of a better way to state this, so please edit the article if you do.
- i am not sure if you are making a distinction between fireworks and firecrackers, but here is one reliable source that posits that fireworks were lit before the ammonium nitrate exploded. dying (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- And fireworks actually means firecrackers bursting. If you have sources about crackers being set on fire then please add it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Add 2011 Cyprus blast to "see also"
I think the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion should be added to the "See Also" section, as this was a similar scenario, where long neglected explosives led to a major disaster. -2003:CA:8736:F0D3:D47A:4F33:3542:72FC (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Done - by *Treker (talk · contribs) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Categories
Should only the eponymous cat be on this article, or should the cats on that cat be on here as well? Jim Michael (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class chemicals articles
- High-importance chemicals articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- High-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class Explosives articles
- High-importance Explosives articles
- C-Class Firefighting articles
- Mid-importance Firefighting articles
- WikiProject Firefighting articles
- C-Class Lebanon articles
- High-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- C-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Mid-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Requested moves