Talk:2020 Beirut explosion

Sodium nitrate cause

"Lebanon's Head of General Security says the blast was caused by a fire in a depot of highly explosive material, including Sodium nitrate, at Beirut's port. He said that material was confiscated from a ship months ago and stored there." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/04/huge-explosions-rock-central-beirut-citys-hiroshima/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masken8 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Or ammonium nitrate ? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/huge-explosion-rocks-lebanon-capital-beirut-live-updates-200804163620414.html —Mykhal (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ap news lists " Local television channel LBC said the material was sodium nitrate. " ? https://apnews.com/d6503f7d779f2790218fe29121368788 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:A100:2F70:AC9E:5EAB:AF5B:71D2 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential motives

Seems like conspiracy theories and biased POV. Should we remove them? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, possibly, but there are not very many explanations at the moment. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I commented that section out. It's insinuative and inappropriate at this point when very little is known. TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, fair point. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. While the BBC is a WP:RS, it is WP:UNDUE to include their speculation - I can only see it being re-added if other sources also begin to cover their angle. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

Could be a C-Class but going to wait on that. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait until the editing rush calms down... Give it a day+.--intelati^talk 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Flags in the Reactions section

Please don't add flags. Reactions sections are always better without flagspam. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, In my opinion they should be added. If you see every other article for a major explosion/terror attack the reactions section has flags. Idan (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not true and is also not really an argument. The flags just constitute WP:FLAGCRUFT and because they necessitate using a bullet list they tend to turn the section into a veritable WP:QUOTEFARM. It's way better to use a footnote as is done over at 2017 Westminster attack#International to avoid having the reactions section dominate the entire article while being of little to no use to anybody. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, right now only the two of us are disagreeing on this.I want to get other editors consensus on this matter. Idan (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any need to include flags. As stated above, they force the text to become a list, and flagcruft is a possibility as everyone wants to put their own flag in. Major national responses can have subsections perhaps, and then other countries' responses can be added as a final sentence, with sources to the responses. but don't stick flags in just for the sake of it - keep them for tables where they can save space. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with TompaDompa. I like the note and how it's formatted. The article supplied is also a B-Class article, so I wouldn't be afraid to use that template. intelati^talk 20:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I also like the format and how it looks. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 20:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The flags are fine. People an pick up colors easier than text, so it helps in finding the country you're looking for. Prad Nelluru (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Beirut bombing

There is an article called 2020 Beirut bombing that a single user has made. They have one unique citation from NPR and one unique category, Category:History of Beirut. Since at least the category should be added here, should a formal merge proposal be done or is it better to just merge the articles together? --Super Goku V (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Super Goku V, It has now been redirected to here. Idan (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that will work then. Sadly, I didn't save the article's url, but I believe it was this article if needed in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence yet that this is a bombing. We should wait until there's more confirmation, and if it's still not a "bombing", remove that redirect.

Any reliable sources calling it a "bombing"? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reaction 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)

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)

@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)

Bhopal disaster 1984

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...intelati^talk 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)

Someone with editing rights

Add Russia to the list of countries that offered condolences: https://www.vesti.ru/article/2436771 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.229 (talk • contribs)

 Doneintelati^talk 20:53, 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)

There has been evidence that ISIS has claimed responsibility for attacks they didn’t commit so I would wait for independent confirmation https://www.businessinsider.com/why-does-isis-claim-terrorist-attacks-las-vegas-shooting-2017-10.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)