Jump to content

Talk:2020 Beirut explosion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 356: Line 356:
:: Disaster is vague and doesn't indicate what specifically took place. –'''[[User:Sonicwave32|<span style="color:green;">Sonicwave</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Sonicwave32|<span style="color:#008FB2">talk</span>]]</sup></small>''' 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
:: Disaster is vague and doesn't indicate what specifically took place. –'''[[User:Sonicwave32|<span style="color:green;">Sonicwave</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Sonicwave32|<span style="color:#008FB2">talk</span>]]</sup></small>''' 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
::: '''Comment''' "2020 Port of Beirut Explosion" would be closer to what we have, and specify the port. [[User:David Crayford|'''David Crayford''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:David Crayford|<span style="color:red;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
::: '''Comment''' "2020 Port of Beirut Explosion" would be closer to what we have, and specify the port. [[User:David Crayford|'''David Crayford''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:David Crayford|<span style="color:red;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support''' - The Wikipedia article itself starts with and develops the 'one' major explosion due to ammonium nitrate, and treats the previous, smaller ones' as potential causes for the main 'one' explosion. All media references are to the 'Beirut explosion'. Public searches likewise. The disaster was due to on explosion due ammonium nitrate. [[User:Politis|Politis]] ([[User talk:Politis|talk]])


==In order to avoid edit wars==
==In order to avoid edit wars==

Revision as of 19:18, 7 August 2020

Template:FSS

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)[reply]

Styyx, add it. Idan (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Those reactions sections are unencyclopedic quotefarms and roundly hated by many editors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The response from the President is generally noted in incidents that make international news. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the second reply, but I am not caught up on everything. This section is discussing the response. Feel free to provide your input there as it seems to have made more progress. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.... and I suspect there might be thousands of similar examples across the entire encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can link relevant quality content, even if non-free, but not embed it unless free.-- (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More pics

https://www.voanews.com/gallery/massive-explosion-rocks-beirut Victor Grigas (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those from Reuters there are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:
news from VOA

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox map

Can the map in the infobox be replaced with one in English please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Found a source. I guess an English-language source will exist and can be added soon. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not to mention that we likely should be cautious about using the Wolfram source as the person who did those calculations tried to add a link to this article twice, which is a potential violation of policy. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

I'm sure Jeffrey Lewis is a very smart fellow, but estimates from blast damage, visual inspection of the shockwave, and crater size are going to be subject to a lot of error. We don't know anything reliable about the formulation of the AN or possible contaminants. Those things impact not only the energetic yield but also the detonation velocity and therefore things like overpressure, etc., so "200-500 tons" is iffy. We have multiple reasons to believe it is close to one kiloton, from dimensional analysis to absolute fireball radius to seismic data to conversion factor. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.15.47 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedian me says (obviously) do not mention nuke speculation unless it is covered in a number of reliable sources. The off-wiki me can do WP:OR, and says that the Beirut explosion did not exhibit the blinding flash nor the marginally detectable increase in radiation that a nuclear device would have caused. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

When multiple reliable sources concur, perhaps? ——Serial 04:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Trump said something does not mean we have to jump the gun. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's record is such that the logical conclusion is that he is making it up unless otherwise demonstrated. Several news sources say the Pentagon rejects Trump's theory.[1][2][3][4]Calmecac5 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fully agree.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trump can easily hide behind the anonymous advice supposedly given by "several of his Generals". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)., and 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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bait30 Here is the discussion. I see consensus of three people saying not to keep the quote.--intelatitalk 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I concur with Agricolae here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "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.
  2. ^ Gilbert, David (5 August 2020). "Trump Fuels Conspiracy Theories By Claiming Beirut Explosion Was Caused By 'A Bomb'". Getaka News. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Either way, Cause should be before Effect (Explosions). TGCP (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one Explosion

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


I'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)[reply]

Sources say otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Would suggest you retain "explosions" in the plural. There is a first, smaller explosion that produces a gray mushroom cloud and a fire of increasing intensity in Warehouse 9 (and detonation flashes, possibly of fireworks or possibly munitions?) followed by a huge blast that destroys Warehouse 12 and generates an orange/red/brown mushroom cloud consistent with the nitrogen oxide product of exploding ammonium nitrate but this cloud is already well developed when, within less than a second later, there appears to be another, secondary, explosion that generates a hemispherical dome of condensation as a shock-wave radiates. It is known that the grain dust in grain silos can explode under certain circumstances and it is not yet clear that the ammonium nitrate explosion did not also trigger a sympathetic detonation of grain dust released when the nearest row of sixteen silos in the grain elevator were destroyed by the shockwave from the detonating ammonium nitrate. That would make it three explosions in all. (Wiccaaron (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

it looks like you've already discovered how to create the redirect page for Beirut Blast and discovered that hashes cannot be used in article titles due to technical limitations, but i thought i might note this so that other editors don't also look into the matter for you. dying (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Red XN 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hear, hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any one who would edit the causality section would have a better display of information rather than trying to find the sources in footnotes! All reports keep updating the death toll ! Z0123456789 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table you added, without discussing it here first despite the existence of a discussion about this very issue where the general opinion at the time of your addition was opposed to the inclusion of such a table, has some massive WP:OR violations. The source cited for the Lebanese figures is completely irrelevant – it's from the year 2006, for crying out loud. The number of injured from Lebanon seems to be a blatant WP:CALC violation, apparently simply being the difference between the approximate total number of injured and the number of injured known to be from other countries. This is completely unacceptable. And just in case this wasn't enough, the table also contains WP:FLAGCRUFT. The table is also ridiculously disruptive to the visual layout of the article, taking up an enormous amount of space. This last point is enough to become a WP:NPOV problem, affording WP:Undue weight to the nationalities of the people who died and were injured by the prominence of the presentation. TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I have corrected some issues related to the sources, in the end I only wanted to organize the outcome. Z0123456789 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but a table is a terrible way to do it. For instance: we don't have figures for Lebanese casualties, and likely never will. A table creates more problems than it solves. Incomplete figures are a way bigger problem in a table than in text. The only real drawback to the footnote was that it made editing the casualty figures less convenient. TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An additional point: Do any sources compile the number of casualties by nationality in total or is this something that we as Wikipedia editors do based on separate reports on the number of casualties of specific nationalities? In other words, do any sources try to list all the casualties by nationality or is it simply a case of one source reporting the number of casualties of one nationality, another sources reporting the number of casualties of a different nationality, and so on? TompaDompa (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

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)[reply]

Do you have a source for those figures? Otherwise it's a Red XN for WP:OR--intelatitalk 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2020

2020 Beirut explosions2020 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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

  • Oppose At the very least, video suggest at least two explosions.-intelatitalk 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per aforementioned comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Disaster is vague and doesn't indicate what specifically took place. –Sonicwave talk 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "2020 Port of Beirut Explosion" would be closer to what we have, and specify the port. David Crayford  17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - The Wikipedia article itself starts with and develops the 'one' major explosion due to ammonium nitrate, and treats the previous, smaller ones' as potential causes for the main 'one' explosion. All media references are to the 'Beirut explosion'. Public searches likewise. The disaster was due to on explosion due ammonium nitrate. Politis (talk)

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 (talkcontribs) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Video could be migrated

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this video be in the article?

Beirut Explosion Moment of blast captured in a BBC interview - BBC URDU

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, as it does not show the blast itself. Zezen (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the video is under a DR discussion at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"blast" means "wind". Not "explosion". GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty weak compared to what it was. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
i agree with ★Trekker. personally, i think it sounds like a sugary carbonated soft drink, so i find the name unusual, but i won't go against consensus on this. of possible note is the fact that deutsche welle originally used the term "Beirut blasts" (with a lowercase 'b' and an 's' on the second word), but subsequently changed the term to "Beirut deadly blast" (with a lowercase 'b' but without an 's' on the last word). dying (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DW also call them "explosions" in this article. "Blast" is usually to avoid repetition and limit character-count in the headlines (cf. e.g. BBC headlines must be 36 characters or less). GPinkerton (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Orica sets the TNT equivalence for fire at 15 percent.

The 0.42 factor applies to chemically pure AN. When mixed with 6% fuel oil it is upwards of 70%; mixing in diesel and nitromethane can get to almost 80%. Impurities may decrease the yield or may increase it, depending on whether there are hydrocarbons involved. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry but you don't get to delete referenced material just because you want to. GliderMaven (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.EbrahimSaadawi,  Done Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Precisely. We run the risk of creating a WP:COATRACK. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
thanks, TompaDompa. dying (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's not clear what change(s) you might be suggesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Azadi Tower with Flag of Lebanon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseina051311 (talkcontribs) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoseina051311: Added, thanks!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying: why did you remove photo? --Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Hoseina051311: @Dying: I've gone ahead and restored the credits and reinstated the picture.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'The' and 'a' differentiation does make it seem like that, especially when stating some sources implied the warehouse with the ammonium nitrate was worked on and others don't. Even if you didn't mean to imply. And as far as fireworks go, yes I was distinguishing it from crackers, but that was my mistake. They have the same meaning, I misassumed its meaning because I've only heard it in statements like "watching fireworks". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway your source says fireworks and ammonium nitrate apparently fueled the explosion, Fireworks, ammonium nitrate likely fueled Beirut explosion. That's not the same as being a real cause, but suspected cause. The authorities have identified a cause already, and we'll need far more than initial speculation to contradict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done - by *Treker (talk · contribs) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The former, no need for such duplication. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

documentation section

i am not sure if the documentation section incorporates especially notable information. people have been sharing personally-recorded photos and videos online for years, and the manner in which they are doing so here does not appear to be extraordinary. the 2015 Tianjin explosions article has a section on social media coverage, but i believe that is because there was an "extraordinary contrast between the official reaction to the crisis ... and the online reaction", and i am not sure if such a distinction is also present with this event.

however, some of the videos described in the section may be notable. i do not know if it is better to describe the videos in the text of the article or include links to them either in an external media template or in the external links section.

@Leaky.Solar: i thought i might ping you as you were the one who created the section. dying (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly dubious that this section conveys anything that has long-term significance. It should probably be removed per WP:10YT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images and videos

The current state of the article with regards to images and videos (and maps, I suppose) is not ideal. There are several things that could be improved:

  • There is no image or video of the explosion itself (or, failing that, the reddish cloud that immediately followed it). I'm not sure if there are any available for us to use—all of the ones currently on Commons have been nominated for deletion—but if one should turn up that we can use it should be placed in the infobox.
  • There is no map in the infobox. The map should ideally be placed in the infobox. The map itself is also suboptimal, which has been discussed above.
  • There are two images and one video dedicated to showing damages. One is enough. Images are better than videos in most cases, including here. We should decide which of the images we want to keep and remove the other one as well as the video. There may be even better images than these ones considering that the images, although their visual appeal is pretty good, do not really convey the scale of how extremely destructive an event this was properly.
  • Some of the images are left-aligned. There is rarely a good reason for images to be left-aligned, and this isn't one of those cases. Having a gallery is also a poor decision in the same way—images should be placed on the right to interfere as little as possible with reading the text unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
  • The placement of the various images and videos is not altogether logical. In particular, the aerial photograph of Beirut before the explosion does not really fit in the MV Rhosus section.
  • The video of the reddish smoke in the evening is a (very) poor substitute for an image of the explosion itself or the reddish cloud that immediately followed. It's also not a very good video (or a particularly good image, if only a single screenshot is considered).
  • The image of the Dutch rescue team boarding a plane adds nothing—it's not informative and does not have much visual appeal. It should simply be removed.
  • There are two images of buildings with lighting to resemble the flag of Lebanon—one from Tel Aviv and one from Tehran. One is plenty, and the Tehran one is a way better image. We should remove the other one and make the image right-aligned per above.

With that said, it's not all bad—the aerial photograph of Beirut before the explosion which marks the site of the explosion is quite neat and should be retained (though perhaps moved). Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right-left staggering of images is actually encouraged by the MOS. As for image choice, we can only use what's free for us to use, not what necessarily looks best (hence we can only include fair use images of the explosion itself). Every image now in the article conveys something unique, with little duplication, and there is little cramming, so I see no grounds for removing anything (except for the gallery at the end which is a bit superfluous). FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. and Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. It's a bit of a stretch to say that it encourages staggering. I have to disagree that there is little duplication or cramming – as noted above there are two images and one video of damages (and the whole Tel Aviv/Tehran thing, where we seem to agree), and I get multiple instances of MOS:SANDWICHING in my browser (though that will depend on one's settings, obviously). TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the light shows at the end, what is duplicated? The two videos show very different things, for example. The port aerial photo could be argued to be adequate in the section for the ship because it shows where it was docked and where its cargo was stored. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These two images are largely redundant to each other, and to this video. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i've added a new map to the infobox and commented out the old one to attempt to address the issues raised. please feel free to undo my edit if it is not an improvement to the article. dying (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Equivalency for Explosive Grade Ammonium Nitrate

The TNT Equivalency of Security Sensitive Ammonium Nitrate (SSAN) is 0.32 i.e.explosive grade Ammonium Nitrate (AN). This factor is from Török & Ozunu (2015) and it is the factor used by the Australian Explosives Inspectorate. That said, the TNT Equivalency of AN is an estimate and it varies depending on the type of AN and conditions that led to a detonation e.g. in Explosive or Fertiliser grade, in bags, in bays, free stockpile, set of by fire or falling debris.

With regards to disaster in Beirut, the AN was in bags labelled Nitroprill, a knock off version of Orca's Nitropril™ (an explosive grade AN or SSAN). If the Nitroprill in Beirut was inferior Fertiliser Grade then it's TNT Equivalency would have been a lot lower, 0.15 to 0.03 according to Török & Ozunu (2015). However, that does not appear to be the case. The factor of 0.32 is likely the most appropriate factor to use at this time.

This may be constrained by looking at the the blast radius. Török & Ozunu (2015) include two charts showing blast overpressure and distance for 10, 100 and 1000 tonnes of explosive grade and fertiliser grade AN.

Török, Z., & Ozunu, A. (2015). Hazardous Properties of Ammonium Nitrate and Modeling of Explosions Using TNT Equivalency. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), 14(11), 2671–2678.

--Diamonddavej (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there already a section about this topic above?? -- Veggies (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing a video clip

For such a well documented event it seems a glaring omission for no video footage to be included in the article. I understand that the salient issue here is footage usage rights - does anyone know if any of the recordings of the blast itself have been released into the public domain?

Failing this, as this is a notable, newsworthy event, is there any reason why the single inclusion of one of the various news media clips of the explosion would not meet both Fair Use and Wikipedia's policy on non-free content, assuming of course that there is genuinely no public domain footage of the event available?

This said, looking at the entry regarding the commons clip above, maybe (if that clip was included previously) this is a matter that is being resolved through that process, but nonetheless... BlackholeWA (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add up

This sentence doesn't really add up:

Eight Ukrainians and one Russian were aboard, and with the help of a Ukrainian consul, five Ukrainians were repatriated, leaving four crew members to care for the ship.

The Russian in question is the captain himself, so shouldn't it be four Ukrainians? --Shandristhe azylean 09:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shandris: i'm the one to blame for the wording. a lot of sources i encountered seemed to contradict each other regarding the exact breakdown of the people aboard the ship. there seemed to be some sort of off-by-one error, which i speculate is due to the ambiguity regarding whether the captain (or master) is counted as crew.[a] i added explanatory footnotes to try to make these conflicts more clear. if you've read the sources and can think of a better way to express the conflicts, then please feel free to rewrite what i have written.
i elected to use the phrase "four crew members" because the moldovan source referred to them as "patru membri ai echipajului" (which google translate tells me means "four crew members"[b]) while the legal source referred to them as a "Master and four crew members", so in both cases, four crew members were left behind. however, in my usage of "crew member" here, the (russian) captain is included, which is consistent with five ukrainian crew members being repatriated.[c][d]
by the way, i recently stumbled upon a post by a russian workers organization that seems to confirm fleetmon's list of four people that were left to care for the ship, which somewhat surprises me since it conflicts with the article that the lawyers wrote about their clients, which i would have assumed would have been definitive. anyway, let me dig that up for you. dying (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay, i found that faster that i would have thought. it's a post by the seafarers' union of russia. it states that those aboard were the captain, the chief engineer, the third engineer, and the boatswain.[e] fleetmon lists them as master (russian), chief engineer (ukrainian), third engineer (ukrainian), and boatswain[f] (ukrainian).
i think i'm going to add this as a footnote on the mv rhosus page, but will leave it out on this article, since it doesn't seem as relevant here. dying (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ i was also wondering whether the discrepancy could be due to a case (or more) of dual citizenship or nationality, but was unable to resolve the issues with that possibility in mind.
  2. ^ unfortunately, i do not know enough about moldovan or romanian maritime terminology to understand if this included the captain or not.
  3. ^ interestingly, although members of the legal team may agree that the term "four crew members" should be used here, their interpretation would likely be that the four crew members did not include the master.
  4. ^ another source claims that there were initially eight ukrainians and two russians, so if five ukrainians and one russian were repatriated, i suppose, technically, the statement that five ukrainians were repatriated is still correct. however, i have also read that the russian diplomats in beirut did not bother to help the russians aboard the boat, so if that were the case, then there may have only initially been one russian aboard.
  5. ^ well, at least that's what google translate tells me. i noticed that you have an ru-2 userbox, so if you have any additional insights regarding the post, please let us know. also, specifically, the post uses the word "россиянам" when describing who the russian diplomats would not help, and google translate tells me that that means "russians", so i don't know if that implies that there was more than one russian aboard, or if that was a result of some russian grammatical rule that i was unfamiliar with, like how some languages (including english) treat negations or the zero case unusually, as in "one person read this far into my footnote" but "no people came to my birthday party".
  6. ^ technically, fleetmon lists this crew member as a bosun, but that's just a different name for the same position.

Countries that provided aid

Currently the article reads

In addition to those countries which provided aid, others have offered to do so

Could we be any more ambiguous? Why not briefly mention the countries that provided aid?VR talk 12:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do, in a footnote (the one following the sentence Health Minister Hamad Hasan requested that international aid be sent to Lebanon; several countries responded to that request. in the "Relief operations" section. The number of countries became too unwieldy, and we wanted to avoid creating a WP:COATRACK situation where a bunch of detail was added about the different countries' relief operations. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely need numbers, not words. Australia put $2 million (AUD) up, and we need to pin these numbers down from all the pledges. There's no reason the countries shouldn't be boasting about their help, so when they're not I just assume it's words not deeds. Some of them are sending personnel and equipment, direct commodity aid, and (I hope from the US) access to long-term near-zero interest credit, in addition to cash. But all of those things have quantities and we shouldn't even include pledges that do not. EllenCT (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]