Talk:2020 Beirut explosion

Blast power in tonnes of TNT/Megajoules?

Is there any determination of the blast measured to the number of tonnes of TNT or Megajoules? Ryan (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not easy to do. The cause of the explosion has been suggested to be the detonation of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in the warehouse. One could get about $2.75\cdot 0.42=1.155{\text{ kT}}$ of TNT equivalent from that amount (0.42 being the relative effectiveness factor of ammonium nitrate). A more conservative estimate may come from visual inspection of the footage, which puts it at "several hundred tons of TNT equivalent". That's what has been reported by the Washington Post, for example. The highest number I have seen reported is 3 kT TNT equivalent, but I don't think that's reliable. For comparison, the latter would exceed the blast power of the Halifax explosion. The article on Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#2001–present currently gives a value of 1.29 kT, but that number is tagged with a Citation needed and should probably be removed. In any case, this explosion is of similar power as the 2015 Tianjin explosions. Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There are now two citations, but the number in the article doesn't match. The wolfram post estimates the yield at ~100 tons TNT (with the error estimated at around 10%), which is comparable to the 300 tons in Tianjin disaster, not equal. The other article just says a “few hundred tons of TNT”. The number in Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions#2001–present should probably be changed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C400:B300:C995:71D9:A39D:F061 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The method used in the wolfram post is sensitive to the fifth power of the measurements taken and so the margin of error is very high -- definitely more than 10%. 10% was the error when this method was used to estimate the Trinity yield, not the absolute error margin of the method. 3 kilotons is far too high and is likely the result of taking the total mass of AN in short tons (2750 tonnes = 3031 short tons) and wrongly assuming you can convert directly from short tons to TNT equivalent for any explosive. While 0.42 is the relative effectiveness factor of ammonium nitrate, even low levels of hydrocarbon contamination can cause that to go up dramatically, as high as 0.78, so 2750 tonnes could yield up to 2.1 kilotons depending on what else was in that warehouse. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Additionally, the detection of a 3.3 seismic event suggests a yield of up to 1.3 kilotons. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is linked as ammonium nitrate, not ANFO. A dimensional analysis gives me about 1.1 kiloton of TNT (like G.I Taylor Trinity explosion estimate), 0.42 conversion factor for ammonium nitrate gives 1.15 kT of TNT. Theorically in several settings the efficiency factor is lower than 0.42 not higher, it can be as low as 0.15. Finally, if the blast was higher than 1 kT the overpressure would have collapsed the front row of buildings on the other side of the large road, which was not collapsed, some of them had minor collapse but it was the exception not the rule. The estimate used in the article of 2.2 kilotons is not sourced and highly dubious, it should be removed.

A Weapons Expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies estimates the yield to be between 200-500 tons TNT equivalent. https://www.sciencealert.com/beirut-s-devastating-port-explosion-100-times-bigger-than-the-mother-of-all-bombs The article acknowledges that some are estimating up >1kt, but he says it does not compare to any nuclear explosion, where the pressure wave would be faster due to speed of a nuclear reaction. My non-expert (opinion) is that a warehouse of loosely collected, accidentally ignited, explosives are not going to be as efficient as some of the comparative explosions made here. Given that the massive Tianjin explosion is estimated in the .3 kt range, I think 1kt for this could be plausible, but pushing it. Keep in mind that yield is very difficult to calculate, and nuclear explosions should not be considered for direct comparisons. Nuclear weapon yield often doesn't even consider the explosion, rather looking at the radiochemical activity afterward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#calculating_yields_and_controversy

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)

"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? Ahmad^talk 04:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources concur, perhaps? ——Serial 04:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because Trump said something does not mean we have to jump the gun. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. This single source is consequently not enough for inclusion. TompaDompa (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

All we can say is under reactions that Trump said this. He certainly isn't reliable enough to put it under causes. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump can easily hide behind the anonymous advice supposedly given by "several of his Generals". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump has a track record comparable to the Daily Mail, which is a WP:DEPRECATED source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). We should not even mention that he said it unless other sources emerge that say the same thing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t it be listed under international responses? Even previous editors have suggested it would be ok to place under responses instead of causes.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason as I stated earlier. Per WP:WEIGHT: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. We don't mention minority views simply to note that they are minority views in cases like this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You also cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL which clearly is met because multiple major reliable news sources have covered Trump’s claim from CNN to Politico to The Hill to Hindustan Times.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The WP:EXCEPTIONAL part is not that Trump said it, but the contents of what he said. TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT would only apply if it were a minority view that he made this comment. He is a major public, international figure so it is appropriate that this is under the international reactions section. Obviously it shouldn't be under causes. Similarly, since this is under reactions, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to the claim that Trump said this, not the claim he is actually making. There are multiple verifiable sources that he made this comment so there is no problem. Scleractinian (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not really how WP:WEIGHT works. Trump's opinion that it was an attack is the viewpoint of a tiny minority at this point. WP:WEIGHT addresses this multiple times: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views., Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)., 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)

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. --intelati^talk 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I also see consensus of three people (me, FunkMonk, and Trekker) saying to include in international responses section.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That reading of their comments is a bit of a stretch. Even if what they meant was that it should be included (I'll let them clarify for themselves), that doesn't constitute WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep a brief mention in the "international responses" that Trump said that. Like it or not, the president of the USA is a very influential person, and even if the theory that it was a bomb is ridiculous, the fact that he floated that theory is notable and it's well enough cited. --Slashme (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The off-the-cuff speculation of a person with a penchant for making ill-informed statements shot from the hip and for telling untruths on a daily basis is WP:UNDUE, no matter what office that person holds, unless the fact that he said it itself becomes a significant aspect of the story. Take it out. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I removed it. If we have this in the article at this point, one of two things is going to happen: (1) we violate WP:WEIGHT by not properly noting how much of a minority viewpoint this is (as was the case), or (2) we dedicate an entire paragraph to basically calling Trump out for having what is at this point an extreme minority viewpoint. Obviously, neither option is acceptable. There is at present no WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion and The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. per WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a sub-story-line that is more about the person who said it than the event, and such stories tend to last only until the next dubious tweet. A year from now when someone comes looking for information on the actual event, this is unlikely to give them the slightest insight. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree and while Trump may be an important figure that doesn’t mean that everything he says needs to be Included especially if no other prominent figures have agreed with what he has said.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

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

After the initial fire, the first explosion was pretty big (1m23s here), causing so many people (even miles away) to film the next, bigger fire and catching the next, much bigger explosion on footage. The phrase "A first, smaller, explosion" is a little misleading, and should be replaced with a size number if available, or at least indicating its absolute size. It seems comparable to the smaller entries on the Ammonium nitrate disasters main list. TGCP (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a separate issue, not related to the singular/plural Title discussion below.

Rough timeline, which should be available in some of the many written sources;

0m0s fire well underway

1m23s first explosion. Many white objects thrown into the air. Orange fire breaks through roof and smoke

{other videos show "sparkles" in the smoke}

1m57s second explosion, much larger.

So there is about 35 seconds between the two explosions. TGCP (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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))

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.

Casualties by nationality

Enumerating the number of casualties by nationality is unnecessary and adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic (i.e. the explosions themselves). The experience from other articles is that this kind of list has a tendency to become something of a scoreboard. It should be removed, or at the very least moved to a footnote much like the one for countries offering aid. TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I use the legal precedent of other articles. This article suggests a table of fatalities. I think this is typical of other disasters-intelati^talk 15:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A table is a categorically terrible idea. That's precisely the kind of scoreboard we want to avoid. It would almost certainly result in a bunch of WP:FLAGCRUFT being added as well. There is no reason to categorize casualties by nationality, any more than there is to categorize them by sex or age. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Requested move 5 August 2020

2020 Beirut explosions → 2020 Beirut explosion – Drop the S. "Explosions" refers to multiple explosions, either at different locations or different times. This was one single explosion that got bigger and bigger in a span of a few minutes. Furthermore, reliable sources, including all main stream media are calling it "Beirut explosion" without an S. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure how a single explosion can get bigger and bigger over time. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment SamirMamdouh, See here (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/04/world/middleeast/beirut-explosion-damage.html). It was clearly two explosions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Zoozaz1, the New York Times article you shared is called Mapping the Damage From the Beirut Explosion, singular. WP:COMMONNAME. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

    Gonzo fan2007, That is true, but on the homepage from where I clicked on it it was plural. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

*Strongly Oppose - It was clearly a smaller explosion that caused a bigger explosion. While the damage comes from the main explosion, multiple happened. Albertkaloo (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Weak Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME Albertkaloo (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose At the very least, video suggest at least two explosions.-intelati^talk 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Multiple explosions is plural, even if they happened in quick succession &/or in the same location. Jim Michael (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose—as of right now, the sourced information in the article indicates there were multiple explosions. So the plural form is consistent with the scope of the article as it stands, and would also include the proximate and earlier events/explosion(s) that led up to the very large detonation of the ammonium nitrate storage cache. N2e (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone who opposed this so far is opposing it based on my argument, while not discussing the fact that reliable sources are calling it an explosion. In singular term. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course they are basing it on your argument. That's the basis for the move proposal. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and nominator. The reality of the situation (one minor blast and then one large blast) doesn't change what the common name of this subject. After a review of the 92 sources in this article, I think only two use the plural "explosions". The remaining refer to it as the "explosion" or "blast". The s should clearly be dropped from explosion. Also important to note that almost no other article uses "explosions", even one's where there were multiple blasts. See 1944 Bombay explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per aforementioned comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PLURAL which states that "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles ... This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.". And the fact of the matter in this case is that there was one big explosion which did the major damage. Secondary explosions and fires do not warrant a special title. Moreover, the current title gives the misleading impression that there were separate events when there was clearly just one. Finally, the article was first created as 2020 Beirut port explosion and has been moved several times without consensus. If there is no consensus, we should return to the original title. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• To demonstrate precedent, consider September 11 attacks and Collapse of the World Trade Center. Plural is reasonable in the first case because there were separate attacks on four different targets in different places. Singular is appropriate in the second case because, even though the two towers collapsed separately, it was essentially one event in one place. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a misinterpretation of WP:PLURAL. The World Trade Center collapse is treated as a singular event because the two towers were part of the same building - the World Trade Center. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • First off, three towers, as WTC7 went down as well. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were all separate buildings: WTC1 was finished in 1970, WTC2 was finished in 1972, and WTC7 was finished in 1987. At best, they were part of the same complex, but definitely not the same building. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Same complex - amounts to the same thing. It's a poor example. Deb (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Albertkaloo, intelati, N2e and Solavirum, you all opposed because there was more than one explosion. No one is arguing that there wasn't, but the fact is that per WP:COMMONNAME, almost every reliable source, including almost all in this article, use the singular, explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources all seem to refer to it in the singular (explosion, blast, etc).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There were multiple explosions, and really it doesn't matter. This is what redirects are for. --Slashme (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support It was one massive explosion. Without that, it would be a story about a small fire. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Although technically two explosions, most video evidence shows one big blast and is referred to as an explosion (singular), it is also easier to find and look up. 199.202.95.19 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose there were clearly two distinct explosions, the second one much larger than the first. Plural is definitely the proper usage here. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This is the more factually accurate title. The proposed move target is however a perfectly reasonable search term and should serve as a redirect to here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Whatever primarily explosion did take place, it would not be notable apart from having triggered the fire and the subsequent explosion. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Support: Firstly, because the fire and first series of explosions (fireworks, etc) was not notable and would not merit a Wikipedia article about it; only the main explosion would. Secondly, because the plural is misleading: it leads readers to ask "Where was the other explosion?" Wtf2wtf (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 18:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support "The death toll from the massive explosion in Beirut has risen to 135, with some 5,000 wounded and tens still missing, Lebanon's health minister told Al Manar television." (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support and not just by the conclusive directions laid out in WP:COMMONNAME but because choosing the plural, now that the smoke has cleared, literally and figuratively, would simply be wrong. There was one explosion that simply happened in stages, exactly like, for instance, the explosion of a thermonuclear device: the fission bomb explodes firstg acting as the "primary" bomb and the fusion capsule then explodes as the "secondary" one. We'd never consider denoting one thermonuclear explosion in the plural. The Beirut explosion started by a preliminary explosion that clearly -and almost immediately- caused the second one. In 2001, we had terrorist attacks against the U.S., rightly in the plural; in 2005, we had the London bombings, incidents separate and unrelated in terms of causation, again rightly in the plural; in 2020, we have an explosion in Beirut. -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME and the sources cited by others. While there were two explosions, this article is more about an singular event. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support change of name, since the source of the explosions was concentrated in and around the same general site where ammonium nitrate was being stored, a flameable chemical substance.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yes, the second explosion was a knock-on but it was still a second explosion. Deb (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - "Explosions" implies there were multiple explosions in different locations across the city while there was only one site. Most sources also refer to the event as "explosion". TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the pyrotechnic events leading up to the explosion probably would not have been termed an explosion or explosions without the big explosion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - though there were two explosions, only the latter one was substantial. It might also be worth considering "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" (similar to what Jmncnj07 suggested below), which still references multiple explosions, but avoids implying that there were multiple separate explosions all around the city (which is my main issue with the current title). –Sonicwave ^talk 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - EDIT: changed to support. I disagree that reliable sources are calling it one explosion with any broad consensus. For example, a NYT article calls them "explosions". I'm not too opposed to scoping down Beirut to "Port of Beirut", but since the devastation impacted much of the city's core, it might be limiting. We should follow leading newspapers, which are not scoping it down with any majority. Prad Nelluru (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Prad Nelluru, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Politico, NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeerah, Fox News, and on and on all use the singular. As I said above, only a couple of the 90+ sources in the article use the plural. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's convincing. I'm going to switch to support. Prad Nelluru (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment check out simple search of "Beirut" in Google News, easily 95%+ uses the singular "blast" or "explosion" when describing the event itself, with most articles explaining the series of events that includes multiple explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" seems to address the issues from both sides the best, but for this proposal specifically I definitely prefer "2020 Beirut explosion" since "explosions" really would imply (in my mind) some series of explosions across the city. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the second explosion is really the subject of the article. The first one is comparatively trivial except for the fact that it caused the second one. --WMSR (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The first explosion is the one that destroyed that chemical warehouse, while the second explosion is the one that destroyed most of the city. Both are the integral part of all of this event. Chongkian (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lol this is predicting that there will be more explosions... kinda scary --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiothenes (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as there were clearly two distinct explosions.5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - it was one major event, plural indicates multiple separate events of similar scale. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support The singular title is preferred as it happen in a single city. I think the article would be rename to 2020 Port of Beirut explosion to be more precise. 36.77.94.46 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the lead states "On the evening of 4 August 2020, at 18:08 EEST, an extremely powerful explosion occurred in the city of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." Regardless of what the cause was, the notable event was a single explosion. That is the topic of this article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Medium Support The Tunguska event article contains multiple events, but only the titular one clearly matters most. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support while technically there were some smaller explosions at first, the cause of all the damage, and the reason this article exists at all, is the one massive blast at the end Hongooi (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Only one explosion caused all of that damage we've seen in Beirut yesterday. Love of Corey (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - The severity of the second explosion does not change the fact that there were two, individually distinguishable explosions. The first explosion seems to have been fireworks, and the second ammonium nitrate; they both apparently detonated from different accelerants, although not confirmed. GyozaDumpling (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support (further consideration) GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - There were two explosions. Even if the second one was much stronger than the other, there were most certainly two. Indeed, most people caught the second explosion on camera because they saw or heard the first one. RBolton123 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Bellingcat have investigated this and say "Although there were claims of explosions at other locations, there does not appear to be images or videos of this, and it is likely these reports were simply a result of the vast explosion at the docks." There was one single large explosion that is the significant subject of this article. David Crayford ☎ 07:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Explosions" makes it sound like there were many separate explosions within the city, which is not the case. Even if there were multiple explosions inside the building, events like this are referred to as one singular event. Compare that with the 2015 Tianjin explosions, which had many explosions over multiple days. Nihlus 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support If it is in the singular, it is more accurate. While there were two explosions, the first one by itself is not very significant and would be nothing without the second, much larger one. Elevating the first explosion to the level of the second in terms of importance takes away from the focus of the article. It's about a disaster whose most important element is the larger explosion, of which the death toll is high and the consequences are disastrous. The scope of the article should revolve around the main disaster. The article for the 2015 Tianjin explosions deserves a plural in the title because the two were comparable to each other in magnitude and took place mere minutes apart from each other. I also cite WP:COMMONNAME because nearly every single source I look at uses the term "explosion", not "explosions" (unless specifically speaking within the scope of both of them, which is really the only time the first one is ever discussed, which isn't common because it isn't as significant). This article itself, at least in the form I see it at present, uses the singular itself in the text more than the plural. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "2020 Beirut Explosions" could imply that there were multiple explosions throughout the course of 2020, rather than multiple consecutive explosions in one place on one date. To avoid confusion, it is most likely better to take off the S. Squid45 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose There were two explosions, but the focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion. That's why some of them use the singular form. This article covers the entire event, therefore the title is plural. The New York Times has an article covering the entire situation as well, and their title also uses plural. Mikalagrand (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Mikalagrand, from WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). If anything, your oppose rationale makes the case for the singular, as you said the focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion, thus we would use the title that is most commonly related to the event (the big, singular, explosion), versus the literal name. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article has shifted from the focus of both explosions to the single, more deadly one. The first explosion can still be included, as that's key to what caused the second one. Admanny (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is a single incident causing multiple explosions SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This was an incident and many major news reports show that there were two explosions. The cause is still not clear. I think its better to wait and see the outcoome of the investigation.95.219.151.195 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Even if there were smaller explosions in the same event, the major part of the event is a single large explosion. It wouldn't make sense to call an earthquake and all its aftershocks "earthquakes." It's all one event and making the title plural just adds unnecessary ambiguity. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of earthquakes: The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes started with a M 6.4, then a 7.1 one day later. The 7.1 was at the forefront of national attention, but didn't change the fact that there were multiple (notable) earthquakes. Same with these explosions. There was the first, much smaller and relatively inconsequential "6.4" explosion, then the damaging "7.1" explosion a few seconds later. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • GyozaDumpling, seems like the sources for your example note multiple, big earthquakes, separated by days apart: Californians’ Alert Apps Didn’t Sound for 2 Big Earthquakes. Why Not?; New York Times; July 8, 2019. Hardly an apt comparison, and if anything, proves the opposite point that you are trying to make. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Gonzo_fan2007, and somehow Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy suffices? They talk about an earthquake and its aftershocks not being called "earthquakes", but what happened in Beirut is not comparable to an initial "earthquake" followed by "aftershocks", it was an event with a "foreshock" and "mainshock", in seismology terms. This changes the title. If the second 7.1 hadn't happened, it would be the Ridgecrest earthquake. If the second explosion in Beirut hadn't happened, it would be the Beirut explosion. Simple. I fail to see how that comparison is lacking. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • GyozaDumpling, my assumption was that Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy was referencing the typical experience of a large earthquake surrounded by small aftershocks, not an experience that the media described as "two big earthquakes". Take a look at Lists of earthquakes: only 5 articles in that list use "earthquakes" in the title, while the remaining 100+ article use the singular "earthquake" (where I can only assume that most of those earthquakes included multiple, big tremors). Again, like every oppose in this discussion, you are basing your rationale off of the fact that more than 1 explosion occurred, which no one is debating. The fact of the matter in that this event (the explosions, the resulting damage and death, and the international response) is being referred to as the Beirut explosion or the Beirut blast by almost all reliable sources. And when we determine the correct name of an article, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the criteria we use. Any other criteria is editorializing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Gonzo_fan2007 I have changed my stance on the title, but I still don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. If the 6.4 happened after the 7.1, it would be "earthquake". Because it happened before, it's "earthquakes". Qwaiiplayer is suggesting a typical earthquake-aftershock sequence, which isn't comparable to the "foreshock-mainshock" explosions. If we're gonna compare earthquake sequences to explosions then at least get the order right, because it makes a difference. It's just a weird comparison. GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Fair enough GyozaDumpling. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with most sources and as the main explosion was much more powerful and hence the primary focus of the article, with the lesser explosions serving as context for it. StuartH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose There was more than one explosion, so the article title should remain unchanged. Roman Biggus (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support for two reasons. (a) By the Wikipedia principle that one should generally use the term that that something is usually known by (it's clear that news organisations etc. are using 'blast' or 'explosion' in the singular). (b) The two explosions weren't all that happened: there was a fire as well, so if one were to include the first (and non-notable) explosion in the title, then one could argue that the title could be 2020 Beirut fire and explosions. And maybe by extension 2013-2020 Beirut alleged poor handling of volatile substances followed by a fire and explosions and thoughts and prayers.--A bit iffy (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A bit iffy, gonna add a redlink just in case someone wants to make that a redirect 2013-2020 Beirut alleged poor handling of volatile substances followed by a fire and explosions and thoughts and prayers hahaha. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - there was just one notable event here, the big explosion. The rest is just backstory. Agricolae (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Why do we have an entire page of discussion over the existence of a single letter?   ApChrKey   ^Talk 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Because it's Wikipedia! It is what we do :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons already stated by others and because I came to this page the day it happened and "Explosions" initially had me thinking there had been another significant explosion (and I had already known about the smaller ones leading up to it). The large/main explosion is obviously what people are coming to read about. Using the plural can be somewhat misleading (at least it was for me). 104.0.177.76 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – There was only one notable explosion, which deserves an article on Wikipedia: the big one involving the ammonium nitrate. The rest is just background information. Keep it simple and clear, just as the majority of sources do. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Its only the big explosion which is notable. People are saying it should stay at plural because there were "two" explosions, but really since there were fireworks involved there were likely several small explosions which contributed.★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The large majority of the disseminated footage with regards to the explosion displays the occurrence of a singular, large, recognisable explosion responsible for the following shock wave; the internal appearance of minute flashes or additional erroneous phenomena does not constitute the classification of the explosion as anything but a singular explosion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Abishe (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Just to note, I have seen the media refering to the catastrophe using both the title "explosion" and "explosions". So, it appears neither is exactly unaccepted. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SecretName101, no one is saying that the plural isn't used a few times, but 95%+ of the time it is referred to in the singular. See a a simple Google news search of 'Beirut'. I think only one source used "explosions" in it's title in the first 50 results! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There were clearly multiple exlplosions. Singular would simply be factually incorrect. The most prevelant support argument is WP:COMMONNAME, but those citing it appear to neglect the fact that this is not the only criterium we use. In this case it is clearly outweighed by WP:PRECISE.Tvx1 19:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Tvx1, you are misrepresenting WP:PRECISE, which says Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. In this case, 2020 Beirut explosion is precise enough of a title, we don't need more precision by noting multiple explosions. WP:PRECISION doesn't mean WP:EXACTLYACCURATE, or as another user pointed out above, it would be 2020 Beirut fire and subsequent explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • And I strongly contest that using a singular noun is precise enough for what even the lead describes as a series of explosions. The singular is just plain wrong.Tvx1 20:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - technically there were 2 explosions however the notable explosion was clearly the second one, Had it just been the firework explosion this article wouldn't exist. As the nom says "explosions" gives the impression a previous explosion happened in Beirut before which is not the case. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per practically all sources, and because the first explosion didn't do much in itself, other than ignite the second one. The second explosion is the subject of the article, the first one is just background, as someone else pointed out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Per COMMONNAME, it's referred to as a singular explosion in almost all news sources because only the larger explosion is significant. Nicereddy (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME and because the big explosion is what really mattered here. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - "2020 Beirut Explosions" might mislead. Especially if the article is viewed in the far future by someone with no recollection of the event. The first thing they would imagine on reading the title is that there were several explosions in Beirut over the course of 2020. "2020 Beirut Explosion" is better, since we are talking about a single incident. A series of explosions can still be referred to as an explosion on the whole. The other appropriate option for me would be something like "4 August 2020 Beirut Explosions". hb2007 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support As per WP:COMMONNAME, if we want to be exact saying there was multiple explosions, then we should include Fire in the title too. In 1 months time, people aren't going to talk about those multiple explosions that happened, it will be the explosion. ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Though there are 2 explosions, the first explosion's heat caused the much worse second explosion, and IMO can be concluded into one big explosion.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the big explosion is a clear fact. This was caused by a fire which may, or may not, have either caused or been caused by an other explosion; this other explosion is not as clear a fact. 93.172.49.0 (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - should be named Port of Beirut Disaster IMO. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Disaster is vague and doesn't indicate what specifically took place. –Sonicwave ^talk 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Support -- difference in magnitude supports the singular. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the common name. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – per COMMONNAME and for reasons already stated. Follow sources. TheBartgry (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion I suggest to use 'disaster' instead of explosion or explosions (like Chernobyl disaster ) to describe this event. The investigations will show many sequence of events (other than explosion of explosive powder followed by the nitrates. mhd196 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Explosions plural signify multiple events, when what we know is, regardless of smaller explosions leading up to the main blast, the damage, death, and destruction was caused by a single explosion. One event. On the other hand, the most accurate way possible to title this page according to known fact(s), would be "2020 Beirut Port Explosion" but if were settling for a less descriptive title, it should be named "2020 Beirut Explosion" as it is one event that caused the destruction, damage, and death. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Does it really matter? Either title is fine as readers are going to find it regardless. There were clearly two explosions as shown in multiple YouTube videos. That the first one is smaller is irrelevant. The second wouldn't have happened if the first one didn't and both killed people - the first one most notably resulting in the deaths of 5 firefighters, one of whom was buried on the day she was supposed to be married. Going for "explosion" over "explosions" is sizeist and, quite frankly, the whole discussion is rather WP:LAME. People are going to be unhappy regardless of the title, so what's the point of this? Pick something that doesn't even include "explosion" like "2020 Beiruit COVID-19 distraction", "2020 demonstration of why you shouldn't store fireworks with ammonium nitrate", "2020 news that isn't about COVID-19 or the US presidential election" or even "2020 Beirut boom that triggered a WP:LAME move discussion on Wikipedia". And, of course, this whole discussion is the result of a statement that is clearly incorrect so the nom should be WP:TROUTed! --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME -- The Anome (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME -- 2800:200:F410:2171:2C55:F3B0:6B9B:E3F3 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Does it really matter? Is this what we’re worried about here, one letter? Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There were clearly two different explosions which succeded each other. People also only filmed the second explosion because they wanted to capture the first one. HDORS (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support People need to get over the technicalities of there being 2 explosions and instead look at how the majority of people will interpret "explosions" as there being several incidents, not just this one incident having a smaller and larger explosion. Authenticfennec (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME Lettler^hello 01:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Although I agree that people will be unhappy whichever title wins, there was only one event. Whether that event consisted of one or two blasts separated by a handful of seconds matters little. So, as the previous commenters noted, let's opt in favor of WP:COMMONNAME. AyaK (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Beirut Blast as potential title option?

The word blast is appearing more and more in news articles and casual discussions, mostly because it rolls off the tongue and is easier to type and say.

It's also accurate. 2020 Beirut Blast? (Or Blasts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"blast" means "wind". Not "explosion". GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds pretty weak compared to what it was. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Blast" very much does mean "explosion". To "blast" something is to tear it down or break it apart, with explosives.

Regardless, "Beirut Blast" is what the media and public are using to refer to the explosions, particularly in the English world, likely (my speculation) because of the alliteration. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles: A blast is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

• 1.) A blowing or strong gust of wind.
• 2a.) A puff or blowing of air through the mouth or nostrils; a breath. Obsolete or archaic.
• 2b.) Angry breath, rage. Obsolete.
• 3a.) The sending of a continuous puff of breath through a wind-instrument, so as to make it sound; the blowing (of a trumpet, or the like); hence, the sound so produced; any similar sound. Also figurative.
• 3b.) figurative. Boasting: cf. the phrase to blow one's own trumpet. Obsolete.
• 3c.) at one blast (Latin uno flatu): at once, at the same time. for a blast: for once.
• 3d.) A company (of huntsmen). Obsolete.
• 4a.) A strong current of air produced artificially.
• 4b.) spec. The strong current of air used in iron-smelting, etc.
• 4c.) in blast, at or in full blast (also transferred): at work, in full operation; also full blast: at full pitch; esp. very loudly. out of blast: not at work, stopped.
• 4d.) figurative. A severe or violent reprimand, outburst, or the like. colloquial (originally U.S.).
• 5.) The sudden stroke of lightning, a thunder-bolt. Obsolete.
• 6.) A sudden infection destructive to vegetable or animal life (formerly attributed to the blowing or breath of some malignant power, foul air, etc.).
• 6a.) Blight; also an insect which causes blight.
• 6b.) spec. A disease of the sugar cane. archaic or Obsolete.
• 6c.) transferred and figurative. Any blasting, withering, or pernicious influence; a curse
• 6d.) A dialectal name of erysipelas.
• 6e.) A flatulent disease in sheep.
• 7.) A blasted bud or blossom; blasted state.
• 8a.) A ‘blowing up’ by gunpowder or other explosive; an explosion.
• 8b.) The quantity of gunpowder or other explosive used in a blasting operation.
• 8c.) A destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outwards from an explosion. Also attributive and in other combinations, as blast wall (see quot. 1852), blast wave; blast-proof adj.
• 8d.) Golf. (Cf. blast v. 5b.)
• 8e.) A party, esp. one that is very noisy or wild. Also, a good time, an enjoyable or exciting experience (chiefly U.S.). slang.
• 9.) Scottish. A smoke (of tobacco). Cf. King James's Counterblast to Tobacco (1604).

We don't need journalistic shorthand. We have Brighton hotel bombing not "Brighton blast" or "Blast at Tory Party Brighton Beach Bash". GPinkerton (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk) Many, MANY historic disasters were given the name by the public, often because they rolled off the tongue best. "Gunpowder Plot" sounds better then "1606 Attempted bombing of the London Parliament" This is the people's encylopedia, and if The Beirut Blast is the vernacular people are going with, discussing, googling, then let us not forsake the peoples word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If this name continues to grow in popularity I would support, but its too soon to tell.★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

interesting. i knew headlines were written to be short, but i did not know that bbc had a 36-character limit. i just tried to look it up, and found an article from 2009 stating that headlines on the front page could be up to 33 characters long while other headlines could be up to 55 characters long. i just checked their current front page, and their headline "What you're allowed to do in the hot weather this weekend" has 57 characters by my count, so i'm assuming that their standard has changed since 2009.

also, i ended up looking at dw's front page to see if they've settled on a phrase for the event, and interestingly, their english page uses "BEIRUT BLAST" while their german page uses "Explosion in Beirut", a phrase that is grammatically correct in both german and english. dying (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk)Reddit Threads have seemingly settled on Blast, and Blast has been in the trending hastag. —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

kilotons of TNT equivalent

A Weapons Expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies estimates the yield to be between 200-500 tons TNT equivalent: https://www.sciencealert.com/beirut-s-devastating-port-explosion-100-times-bigger-than-the-mother-of-all-bombs Keep in mind that yield is very difficult to calculate, and nuclear explosions should not be considered. Nuclear weapon yield often doesn't even consider the explosion, rather looking at the radiochemical activity afterward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#calculating_yields_and_controversy

If anybody sees a reliable source for the equivalent kilotons of TNT/Hiroshima bomb, I think it should be added to the article. My rough calculation is 7% of Hiroshima. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

See here "News reports state the explosion was caused by 2750 tons of ammonium nitrate which is roughly equivalent to 1100 tons of TNT." So, it's indeed about 7%. Count Iblis (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a reliable source but it also may overstate since it is based on a simple calculation rather than any measurement of this particular blast. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reason to doubt that the ammonium nitrate detonation was about a kiloton? I would hate to be the guy who abandoned the boat with that fertilizer on it, or the official who didn't sell it to Syria when they were having their agricultural crisis right now. (Except, I don't know when the abandoned cargo was originally seized.) EllenCT (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The 0.42 factor only applies to ANFO that is properly mixed as an explosive (94% AN and 6% FO). Unmixed Nitroprill (if that's what it was) would have a significantly lower explosive yield. From @ArmsControlWonk (https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1290795532701425664): "The bags say "NITROPRILL HD," which may be a knock-off of Nitropril made by Orica.

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)

.15 x 2750 = 412.5 One more data point that suggests the explosion was a few hundred tons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.129.181 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The RE table in TNT equivalent says that the factor 0.42 applies to AN while for ANFO it is 0.74. Which numbers are correct?--SiriusB (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is linked as ammonium nitrate, not ANFO. A dimensional analysis gives me about 1.1 kiloton of TNT (like G.I Taylor Trinity explosion estimate), 0.42 conversion factor for ammonium nitrate gives 1.15 kT of TNT. Theorically in several settings the efficiency factor is lower than 0.42 not higher, it can be as low as 0.15. Finally, if the blast was higher than 1 kT the overpressure would have collapsed the front row of buildings on the other side of the large road, which was not collapsed, some of them had minor collapse but it was the exception not the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.113.81.70 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of TNT equivalent from the lead. Originally it said 1.1 kiloton until it was changed to 2.2 with no explanation. I understand that naively multiplying the relative effectiveness of 0.42 could arrive at the 1.1 kt figure, but I do not think it falls under the WP:CALC exception to original research without a consensus. In any case, I could not find a consensus among reliable sources for either number, so I have removed it for now. There are sources that have a figure anywhere from a few hundred tons to 2.2 kilotons. cathartid - talk 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I removed it because it was unreferenced. There was no reference for it in the lead, and no mention of TNT equivalent in the rest of the article. cathartid - talk 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The part I added was simply stating the TNT equivalence of the amount of ammonium nitrate that was quoted, under the relative effectiveness factor, not saying that the blast was actually that much. Like saying, the amount of money in the jar was $1000 US which is equal to xxx CAD, without saying how much was actually spent. SO it is a perfectly correct statement that can be brought back. As a lower bound it is definitely higher than 500 tons, as these blasts were studied in detail in Operation Sailor Hat where the crater and blast were smaller. Questions remain, did all of the AN detonate, and were there other munitions or fuels that added to it. Its all pure speculation until damage at specific blast radius is estimated for PSI Crazytrain411 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case it might be okay, but I think it should have a reference, either for the RE factor or for the calculation itself. cathartid - talk 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

One should also keep in mind that the energy distribution if a conventional detonation strongly differs from that of a nuclear one. The 500 ton Sailor Hat detonations are said to represent the blast of a 1-kiloton nuclear explosion since a nuclear weapon releases only about half of the total energy as blast. On the other hand, we do not know how much of the AN has actually been detonated.--SiriusB (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Relief section

Having a separate subsection for the European or Italian response, as was added with this edit does not seem appropriate to me per WP:DUE. The Italian response is already mentioned in the footnote. These additional sections are furthermore pretty poorly written with a tone more befitting a press release or a newspaper than an encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My first Talk/edit to Wikipedia so excuse my lack of protocol. I just wanted to amend this:

Please kindly add Egypt into the list of the countries that offered aid amidst the crisis, I am personally one the medical professionals involved in the massive aid program and it's disappointing all these other countries are cited except for Egypt. Not for political propaganda reasons, just for statement of facts. Thank you. Verification: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Let's stop canceling European relief contributions, amplify them and improve. We do not delete the information.--Peter39c (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peter39c: While I appreciate the detail, I'm wary of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH. We currently have twenty-two countries in the footnote, and we could easily write a paragraph for each country. For some of the countries more deeply involved, like Iran or France, there could well be several paragraphs. But would an article where the absolute majority of the content is about different countries' relief efforts—as would surely be the case if the detail you've put in for Italy is extended for all countries, especially given the potential for patriotism/nationalism-motivated editing here—be really desirable? And would a reader reading in 2030 really benefit from this excess of information? I'm not sure at all.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

As I mentioned in the edit summary, I do think it's reasonable that a few specific countries are singled out for more detailed discussion (and by this I mean a single sentence), if we can show that overview RSs focus more on them. Certainly France might deserve a separate sentence given the fact that Macron himself went to Beirut.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

In short, we cannot ignore the European relief and the arrival of the French president in full covid-19 emergency. Objectivity must be the cornerstone for writing this article.--Peter39c (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that Macron very much deserves a mention, as AFAIK the only head of state who has actually gone to Beirut, but a single sentence is probably enough. As for other countries, I don't think we should be putting anything in the main text unless they're outstandingly noteworthy in some way.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we ignore the relief from European countries – but this is something that is already mentioned in the footnote. The issue here is one of WP:Due weight. As Karaeng Matoaya notes, it might be appropriate to very briefly elaborate on specific countries' relief if WP:RELIABLE sources focus more heavily on those countries' relief. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

should the mention of the dutch rescue crew that is currently located under the international subsection of the reactions section be moved up to the relief operations section, stay where it is, be relocated elsewhere, or be removed entirely? currently, the photo of the dutch urban search and rescue team is located in the relief operations section and not the reactions section. dying (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's already in the footnote which lists countries that have sent rescue teams. I removed the duplicate mention. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Information on the European Union's relief continues to be downplayed and new informations that US President Trump wants to help Lebanon is ignored despite the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic. I am fed up with this attitude and will not give more my contribution in writing this article.--Peter39c (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

Azadi Tower with Flag of Lebanon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseina051311 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoseina051311: Added, thanks!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: why did you remove photo? --Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoseina051311: after a cursory search, the image appeared to me to be produced by fars news agency, and i could not find any mention of such works being free for use. after seeing your message, i did a little more digging, and it appears that i was wrong; works by fars news agency are licensed under a creative commons attribution 4.0 international license. it was my fault that i had not realized that during my initial search, and for that, i apologize.

however, that license also requires that any changes be indicated, and it appears that a portion of the picture was cropped to remove the credit. if you were to upload the picture unadulterated, i see no issue with reinstating the picture. thanks for raising the issue. dying (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoseina051311: @Dying: I've gone ahead and restored the credits and reinstated the picture.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

great, thanks, Karaeng Matoaya! i was sad when i commented out that picture believing that it couldn't be used, so i'm glad that this was resolved. also, thanks to Hoseina051311 for finding it in the first place. dying (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's appropriate to devote so much space for gestures by two countries that many Lebanese would see as their enemies (Israel to one camp, Iran to the other). I don't even think we need to show it at all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reduced the images to the normal small sizes created by the gallery tag, which makes them take up much less of the article visually speaking. And while I see your point, I'd rather be inclined to say that the fact that Israel and Iran are two of the most important countries in Lebanon's geopolitical situation means that the images are worth keeping.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or show such gestures from more neutral countries. To many Lebanese, either image is like twisting the knife. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

regardless of your opinion on it, it is historically significant and should be kept. IveGonePostal (talk)

How is it "historically important"? It is an empty gesture to score points, not actual help. At the same time, Syria is receiving the wounded, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

i agree with Karaeng Matoaya and IveGonePostal; they seem especially relevant considering the context.

also, i need to apologize again to Hoseina051311, since i now see that this image was on commons and the fars template had been correctly applied to conform with the requirements of the copyright license before i had commented out the photo. i am not sure how i missed that this file was on commons before, as that would have made confirming the copyright status so much easier. anyway, that was completely my fault. sorry about that! dying (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Add other examples here : Rio, Christ the Redeemer (statue). TGCP (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

#We do not want

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Beirut_explosions&diff=971470853&oldid=971470832 Should # we do not want remain or should it notBaratiiman (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I say leave it out. No indication of long-term significance (yet). Does not seem likely to pass WP:10YT. TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say leave it in. It reflects the political and international situation of the time as much as instances of buildings being lit up with the lebanese flag. If this is all that comes out of the explosion's aftermath, then so be it. I'd be against dedicating a subsection to it however, a mere note on the relief section should suffice. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Warehouse door welding

I notice that the article assumes a dispute about which warehouse door the workers were working on. However saying sources don't imply any connection to a warehouse. However, that is a poor assumption. It's not necessary that every source will detail the whole thing. If it's known that welding at a door, no matter the building, caused it, and someone simply says welding at a door caused it, then it can't be presumed to be contradictory.

Is there any evidence of sources saying welding at any other building caused it or even if other buildings were under welding. If there's no contradiction, then this article is making up one. And it seems strange to me. Everyone doesn't have to be completely detailed, nor that makes them contradictory. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: i am the one to blame for the wording. initially i added that the welding was at a door of the warehouse, because that is what a source stated. however, after reading a lot more about the starting of the fire, i noticed that a decent number of sources were subscribing to the theory that fireworks were initially lit before the ammonium nitrate was, and since it was not clear whether the fireworks and the ammonium nitrate were stored in the same warehouse, i noticed that not all sources actually had stated that the door being welded was that of the warehouse storing the ammonium nitrate, so i don't know if the sources that did state that were accurately describing what the lbci reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection (or alternatively, whether the lbci was accurately describing what the attendees of the briefing reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection). after all, i was guilty of making the connection myself before being aware that i had made it, and did not know if some of the sources had too.

so i made an edit to state that the connection implied by some sources may not have been present in others. because at least one editor did not understand which "the" i was referring to, i added more detail to explain what i was referring to. i did not mean to imply that there was a dispute between sources, and i apologize if that is the case. i merely wished to note that although some sources made the connection, perhaps inadvertently, it was not a connection expressed by all sources, and i did not want any readers to assume that the connection should necessarily be made. i did not want to appear as if i was presenting original research, so my wording was focused on what the sources reported. however, it was difficult to do so without treading in original research territory. if you know of a better way to present this, or believe that, under wikipedia policies or guidelines, it should not be presented at all, please feel free to edit my words to how you see fit.

also, i think i encountered at least one source that mentioned that the warehouses were in a general state of disrepair, so it was not inconceivable to me that welders were brought to repair a number of warehouses. unfortunately, i cannot remember at all where i read it, though i don't recall thinking that it was an unreliable source. dying (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't state which door, doesn't mean they mean another door. Even if you do think it does, there is no need to mention whether it was the one with the ammonium nitrate or some other warehouse. Because we'll be making our own assumptions of what it meant.

And fireworks actually means firecrackers bursting. If you have sources about crackers being set on fire then please add it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

i was neither trying to imply that the other sources meant that another door was being worked on, nor do i believe that. i merely wanted to note that other sources did not explicitly state that the door being worked on was a door of the warehouse containing the ammonium nitrate. i am unaware of a better way to state this, so please edit the article if you do.

i am not sure if you are making a distinction between fireworks and firecrackers, but here is one reliable source that posits that fireworks were lit before the ammonium nitrate exploded. dying (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

'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)

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)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: i was aware at the time that adding a footnote to the indefinite article "a" could be problematic, as it may have unintended implications, as you have indicated, but i also personally felt at the time that deliberately using the indefinite article "a" while a cited reliable source used the definite article "the" without explaining the discrepancy was a more egregious editorial decision. however, i am also aware that this may be a personal judgement call, which is why i stated that if you felt that it should be removed, i had no problem with you doing so.

also, no worries about making that distinction inadvertently. after all, making distinctions inadvertently happens to be exactly what we're discussing, isn't it? i was guilty of it myself when initially posting with the word "the", and it's what i was worried that a reliable source may have done.

you are right that the source i provided only suspected that fireworks ignited the ammonium nitrate. that's why i stated that these sources were "subscribing to the theory that fireworks were initially lit before the ammonium nitrate was". however, reading about experts subscribing to that theory is what made me realize that i may have made a distinction inadvertently when i first used the definite article "the" in this article, despite checking multiple times to make sure that what the reliable source stated was what i was stating.

by the way, i have since come across an instance of a reliable source strongly implying that the warehouse where the fire started and the warehouse where the ammonium nitrate was stored were two different warehouses. a reporter from al jazeera stated that the initial warehouse fire had spread to the warehouse with the ammonium nitrate, and the wording chosen would be absurd, though still technically grammatically correct, if they were the same warehouse. if you are interested in watching it, the video is here, with the relevant section beginning around 05:05. notably, the reporter does not mention that the fire started in a warehouse storing fireworks. also, there have been multiple reports that fireworks were stored in the same warehouse as the ammonium nitrate, with one source stating that there was one warehouse to store "hazardous goods".

also of possible interest is this article, which notes that witness reports and the welders' manager's statement appear to be in conflict.

anyway, apologies for the delayed response. i drafted it, but then somehow forgot to actually post it. dying (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

These two images are largely redundant to each other, and to this video. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

The current article version has this lead photo, which is too understated, and merely shows what could be the passing of a dry hurricane or a small bomb : structures are intact, cars are upright with many good windows, trees have leaves, even some windows are still in place. It should be replaced by a photo that shows the large destruction; such as this, that, or what you prefer. TGCP (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Those images aren't spectacularly good, either. The ideal picture would be something like this or this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but nice aerial photos are usually not free - the similar photos were deleted at Commons. I just searched for a free aerial photo, but no results. If some becomes available at some point, we can easily switch to that.

We gotta work with the free photos we have. I suggest using a confirmed free photo as a better lead photo for now; I see no reason for waiting. The question is, which available photo should we use now? TGCP (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone has added this harbour photo as lead photo, which is much more descriptive. Thanks. TGCP (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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? --Shandris^{the azylean} 09:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@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. 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") 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.

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)

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. fleetmon lists them as master (russian), chief engineer (ukrainian), third engineer (ukrainian), and boatswain (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)

Notes

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)

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)

Personally, the number of footnote is becoming unwieldy for such an article, but I assume that it is the best idea outside of a second article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think creating a second article would be even worse. Better to trim the footnotes. TompaDompa (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then that is acceptable. I do plan on uprooting the footnotes instead of trimming them to just the needed ones as 14 is silly for an article of this manner. Not to mention how unwieldy they can be and how there was at least one instance of vandalism which is sadly helped by how they are at the bottom of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

One solution is to avoid mentioning the specific countries (even in a footnote) and just use a WP:CITEBUNDLE instead. I'll do that. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

And I should say, ideally, the UN general assembly should figure out how to pass a resolution granting a certain amount of immediate relief and long-term compensatory credit from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. I'm pretty sure they have always had remote provisions. I believe it will become obvious over time that international maritime law left very few options open for the now-jailed Lebanese officials regarding abandoned fertilizer. EllenCT (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Should we not include countries that sent aid if they did not quantify how much in monetary terms? I don't particularly like listing countries by the dollar amounts of aid because it quickly turns into a scoreboard. TompaDompa (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you rather have a scoreboard or empty pledges listed? EllenCT (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for any scoreboard of any kind at all. Nobody is going to read this page in ten years and go "oh, so country X gave this relief aid whereas country Y only gave this relief aid, how very interesting". I'm not sure which empty pledges you are referring to, but the solution is simple – remove them. TompaDompa (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

i found the mention of australia's pledge of usd unusual, and wasn't sure if the guidelines on conversions in mos:currency were applicable.

similarly, there is a conversion of lbp to usd on the page, which seems to use the official rate rather than the market rate, which is very different. i don't know which is better to use, and mos:currency does not appear to provide any guidance on this. dying (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Appeals from residents for aid direct to people bypassing government

NPR is reporting that when Marcon spoke in Beirut, he was repeatedly asked to send aid directly to the Lebanese people because they didn't trust their government to not steal it. This is easily verifiable e.g. [1] This is not the sort of thing that happens in the aftermath of most major disasters, so we should probably include something on it. EllenCT (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait to see if something comes of it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like something did indeed do so: [2]. I added it to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Individuals' donations in the Reactions section

Is that really necessary? Currently, there is only a Pewdiepie mention, while at least according to a quick google search, several other wealthy individuals donated sometimes even larger sums of money (Pope Francis, George Clooney, UAE sheikhs,...). Unless the donation is somehow newsworthy in itself (like big percentage of personal net worth or politically newsworthy), I feel any mention of individual donations should be omitted, as it stinks of possible (even if unintended) PR or fandom. Especially since the user who added the Pewdiepie one has most of his edits on pop culture pages, not disaster relief related at all. What's the consensus on this?Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer individual donations be replaced with some Lebanese authority keeping track of aggregates, or in the alternative a gofundeme or the like (what works here? Indigogo?). EllenCT (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Pewdiepie donation mention has been since removed by some other editor even before I posted this (personally, I think it's good, since unless really newsworthy, it has no place in an article about such tragedy). Still, I'd be interested in any consensus on such matters. Aggregate donations might be hard to quantify, since probably many donations went through unofficial or less official channels and were actually encouraged to go as such by high profile people of Lebanese origin like Taleb, to circumvent possible siphoning of funds by any corrupt officials.Technicality nitpicker (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

High profile casualties

Please add to the casualties section: the wife of the Dutch ambassador was badly injured in the explosions and later died of her injuries. Source: https://nos.nl/artikel/2343307-echtgenote-van-nederlandse-ambassadeur-beiroet-overleden-als-gevolg-van-explosie.html 82.176.221.176 (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. that is sad to hear. i was hoping she would pull through. i have updated the article. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edit. I'm afraid with events like this one, most news will be sad news... 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Amadeo II image

Is there a strong case for using this image in the shipping section of the article under fair use rules? Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering we are even leaving out free images due to space issues, and that we don't even use a fair use image of the explosion itself, which would have first priority, I don't think it is anywhere significant enough. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Pls add Amadeo II aka Arroi (Ship, 1976) in the article. Refs: soefart.dk + info vessefinder.com + last Transponder-Info + commonscat|Pia Theresa (ship, 1976) + Wikidata Q52316987. Up to now it is known as ship nearest to ground-zero. Greets --80.187.105.39 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

i believe it is already mentioned in the article. is there something specific you wanted to add? dying (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

ok found it in article. its up to you using more of the above infos f.e. for creating wikilinks and a ship article Arroi (Ship, 1976). --80.187.105.39 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Fatima Gate" Hezbollah arms stash

Should the entry include reports and denials of the theory that explosions were stored weapons of Hezbollah. (This differs from the above section on external bomb and Trump's guess.) Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli commentator and lecturer, endorsed the theory. Nasrallah denied that Hezbollah stored weapons or used the Beirut port. Even if a conspiracy theory, does it deserve mention in entry? -Yohananw (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT: 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). [...] 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. TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would wait to see if this ides gets more traction.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

On August 7, David Wurmser reported an informed and different scenario on Hezbollah complicity in the disaster, including that:

• The MV Rhosus made good its last shipment to its original destination of Beirut. The Mozambique mining order was cover story for high grade explosive nitrate for the Hezbollah from the get go.
• There were three explosions (before the pressure wave Wilson condensation cloud) not two explosions - a.) small munitions or fireworks; b.) high explosive or "even rocket fuel", and; c.) the large ammonium nitrate store (that belonged to Hezbollah).
• Hangers 9 and 12 were under Hezbollah control, reportedly called by them "Fatima Gate", and used for clandestine smuggling and importing and exporting terror weapons and bomb materials. (Hezbollah also reportedly situates a missile factory under a stadium in Beirut and stores missiles in close proximity to civilians.)
• There are disinformation campaigns by Hezbollah and the Lebanon government to deflect attention from their complicity in the disaster.
• Parts of Lebanon's population reportedly hold Hezbollah responsible for the catastrophe

More sources required for wiki consensus? See in Wurmser, report of an August 6 MTV interview with a retired inspector of Beirut port.

With such alternative takes, the wiki banner with preliminary current event caution is indeed correct. -Yohananw (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As said above, wait to see if this idea gets more traction. It's one thing for this to be (self-?) published by FASF, and quite another for it to be published by e.g. Reuters, Al Jazeera, or the Associated Press. TompaDompa (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

If we give any credence to this theory, it should be balanced with the welding accident and other combustibles storage explanations which appeared here earlier. One of the things that the international intelligence community-connected twitter accounts remarked early on is that the major powers who have reached a dentante on the backs of Lebanese poverty had no interest in destabilization. We should not allow opportunistic smears without clear causal links to the accused actors. EllenCT (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

True Hanlon's razor states "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, there are limits to state carelessness, incompetence and corruption. The version that the nitrate was purchased by Iran for Hezbollah and kept in Hangar 12 on purpose for operational access has credence, strong reports and probably soon enough credible sources in English to consider inclusion in the article.-Yohananw (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Protesters storming government buildings

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-08-08/furious-lebanese-count-their-losses-from-blast-plan-demonstration

I just heard a radio report suggesting the police are refusing to defend some of the government officials offices. 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:7D5D:1572:D43A:9011 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fertilizer => misunderstood or misleading Idea of „fertiliser grade ammonium nitrate“ (FGAN)

The stuff in Beirut was not designed as fertilizer.

• Further reading: ATF, DOT et.al.: Chemical Advisory: Safe Storage, Handling, and Management of Solid Ammonium Nitrate Prills

In the meantime i've read a lot about thia specialized Nitrates. The stuff in Beirut was „technical grade ammonium nitrate“ (TGAN) and „Security Sensitive Ammonium Nitrate“ (SSAN)[3]. These „Prills“[4] are specially made as a Preproduct for ANFO. Exactly the same stuff (with various contaminations) has caused the Toulouse chemical factory explosion. Please adjust the article and eliminate misleading information. Regards --80.187.105.39 (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source explaining the difference between NH4NO3 produced for agricultural and military uses? I can find no evidence that there is any difference. As pubchem says, it's "beads, pellets, or flakes."[5] All three forms are used in both agricultural and military applications, because any soluble form is completely interchangeable with any other soluble form in either application. A prill is merely a nonuniform pellet, absolutely used in both agriculture and military uses, because it's one of the least expensive useful solid forms. Nobody wants 100 kg ingots. EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources are already given above. PLS. note: it's not the difference between agri-/mil-use. It's concerning the differnce between agri-/mining-use. These explosives are used in large Quantities for Quarrys. To produce ANFO you need specialized Prills. „Nitroprill HD“ which was been stored in the Beirut Warehouse is exactly what you need to produce those explosives. --80.187.101.74 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source supporting the assertion that, "to produce ANFO you need specialized prills"? EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, didn't you read the given source? The best choice for ANFO are those Prills which can easyly absorbe and hold fuel oil. It does not say that „fertiliser grade ammonium nitrate“ (FGAN) is harm- or useless. --80.187.101.74 (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe you have responded to my question. EllenCT (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

admittedly, i claim virtually no knowledge of ammonium nitrate (sadly, i only learned from reading this section that "prill" was an actual word, and not just a misspelling of german fairy), and although i did try to look into your source on prills, google isn't letting me read all the pages anyway (which is a handy excuse since i'm not smart enough to understand it even if google did let me read all the pages), but regardless of whether the shipment was designed as fertilizer, there's a reliable source reporting that the would-be buyers stated that they had not designated it for use as fertilizer, but for mining.

currently, in the main text of the wikipedia article, there appears to be two mentions of the word "fertilizer": under the mv rhosus section, and under the cause section. the first mention seems to imply that the ammonium nitrate was intended to be used as fertilizer, so i think that should be removed. the second mention is in a phrase that explains what nitrates can be used for (and actually appears to have stolen the phrase from the lead of the nitrates article), so i currently see no issues with that mention.

if i were to remove the first mention, would there be any other content in the page that you would consider misleading? dying (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Well i feel that actually most of us are learning more about this things. Cleraring the Terms of „technical grade ammonium nitrate“ (TGAN) and „Security Sensitive Ammonium Nitrate“ (SSAN) and „fertiliser grade ammonium nitrate“ (FGAN) is a first step. Concerning the blast there is more to come up. If you like read: Zoltán Török, Alexandru Ozunu: Hazardous properties of ammonium nitrate and modeling of explosions using TNT equivalency, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 14, September 2015 (Researchgate.net online) Regards --80.187.101.74 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Pure" ammonium nitrate meets all of those three standards, and comes in more than three forms. EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ellen, The OP states that the grade of AN stored at Beirut was TGAN/SSAN, a finer size grade used for mining explosives rather than agriculture. I'd like to see a source that confirms whether the material involved is this grade rather than random agricultural AN. Any grade can be used for any purpose, but particular finer grades are specifically produced for use in explosives, due to smaller and more uniform particle size. Enderwigginau (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

images

those are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International from Mehr News Agency so you guys can use these

@Hoseina051311: thanks for uploading these. Pigsonthewing has selected one for use in the infobox. dying (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Maritime law on abandoned fertilizer generally

So, let's say I buy a cargo ship, fill it half full with bags of ammonium nitrate on pallets, include a few thousand dollars of other incidental cargo, and sail it to Taranto, Italy, leaving it moored in a commercial dock and then basically going away and not paying rent. Or Southampton, England, Mersin, Turkey, or Hamburg, Germany. In which of those four jurisdictions would anything happen differently than happened in Beirut (unclaimed property seized and stored for at least five years in the nearest available warehouse)? I do not believe the officials in those four jurisdictions would have sold even twice the quantity. However, I would certainly support international maritime law proposals which would require them to do so after three months, for example.

I believe the article would be improved by reference to the operative Lebanese and European statutes and regulations governing the situation. I believe that those are basically the same, but I would like to read the opinions of a lawyer familiar with Beirut's shipping industry before I make a more specific proposal. EllenCT (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that if this had been in the UK or Germany, the chemicals would have been stored under appropriate conditions. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Do you have a source explaining what those conditions might be? EllenCT (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Difficult, because many different Authorities have given a vast number of overlapping regulations over the time. International Maritime Law is always behind the time. Most dedicated and up to date and are official regulations of Australia. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulates the handling and storage of AN in waterfront facilities. For more information, see 33 CFR 126. For Great Britain you can read: Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom: Storing and Handling Ammonium Nitrate, 2004 (Online-PDF 150 KB). As far as i acutally know the only source which quoted that high grade NH4NO3 is banned in Lebanon was captain Boris Prokoshev quoted in this[6] interview. --80.187.101.74 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

“ Ammonium nitrate, which is a dual-use fertilizer, is banned in Lebanon. “I have no idea how Grechushkin got permission for us to dock in Beirut,” Prokoshev said in the interview with the Russian publication MediaZona, adding that in Beirut the crew was told to load up the ship with heavy machinery. The captain refused to receive the machinery on board because the ship “could not physically take so much.” By then, he said, the crew had grown increasingly angry with Greshuchkin over his failure to pay their salaries, and a partial strike ensued. ”

That is the same story I heard in not so many words from other sources. This was a clear property abandonment issue, and the reason that port authorities aren't required to auction the surplus is on the theory they might interfere with other contracts. We have got to have an exception for hazardous materials. The question then becomes who has the liability for not uncovering them from the auctioneer's house? This is an economic question as well as a practical matter. EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I can tell that there are other ports with just as much abandoned ammonium nitrate. Thank goodness it is difficult to ignite. EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Much of what was impounded in Europe for the past decades could have rescued Syria from their agricultural crisis. EllenCT (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Source request: welding

"Local TV station LBCI said that workers welding a door at the warehouse on Tuesday started a fire that ignited the chemicals, according to people who attended a Higher Defence Council briefing after the blast."[7] Any idea who might have a recording of that? EllenCT (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hungary has donated 1 million EUR to the Lebanese Maronite Church

The source is the official website of the govt. of Hungary and it is in English. Please add to the list of donations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.93.140 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't currently have a list of donations, and we don't want one. See #Countries that provided aid. TompaDompa (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

[8] EllenCT (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

source for death toll

the article is currently using a tweet as the source for the death toll of 220, and i am not sure if this violates wp:twitter. does anyone have a better source? dying (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)