Talk:Boksburg explosion

Does this article meet WP:EVENT?

As horrific as this tragedy is, does it meet the criteria for inclusion? South Africa is routinely beset by terrible tragedies. In September 2022, a vehicle carrying young school children was crushed by a truck, killing 21 people[1]. That incident also received widespread international coverage, but because it was in a rural area, it may not have had the social media impact that this explosion did and it isn’t covered on Wikipedia.

I don’t think this article should be deleted, but if, after some months, it’s found that it doesn’t meet the criteria for WP:EVENT then consideration should be given to removing it. Ultimately I suspect it will have very little lasting impact (even on obvious things like hazardous materials transport regulations and bystander management by emergency services) and there won’t be any kind of meaningful analysis or long-term in-depth coverage. Park3r (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clearly notable. Other LPG tanker explosions with fatalities on a similar scale have been considered notable enough for Wikipedia pages - Waverly, Tennessee, tank car explosion, Chala LPG tanker disaster, 2007 Glorietta explosion. In fact there is a whole Category:Tanker explosions for these pages. Zaian (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The other events had long-term consequences, investigations and ongoing coverage. If there’s a serious attempt to investigate this explosion and ongoing coverage then it would be notable. If it’s forgotten about after a couple of weeks, then it probably wouldn’t. As I said, it’s too early to tell. Park3r (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's already notable. Zaian (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The presence of this article may encourage more open and comprehensive investigations of value. Selective memories to which we have become "accustomed" must not be allowed to sweep this incident under the carpet. There is accountability and culpability that needs serious attention. Safetytrain (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:EVENT, “Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.”

At this point it’s too early to tell if the article meets those criteria.

Should there be enduring coverage: in-depth interviews; an investigation into the failure to secure a perimeter around the tanker, into the training and resourcing of the emergency services, into the transport of hazardous materials. Into the warning signs, or lack thereof that allowed the truck to be lodged under the bridge? Yes. Will that actually happen? That’s an open question. Park3r (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing 'routine' about an explosion of this magnitude in a residential area in South Africa. Nothing directly comparable to this explosion has happened in South Africa since the Braamfontein Explosion in 1896 (which this, admittedly, does pale in comparison to). It remains, however, an entirely different class of tragedy from vehicle collisions or other more ordinary traffic accidents, which do, in fact, happen all the time (the definition of 'routine'). I believe this event is inherently notable purely on the basis of it being so exceptional and out of the ordinary.ENEvery (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I should just add that, in terms of the notability guidelines in WP:EVENT, I genuinely think this won't fail the "lasting effects" rubric, since at the very least there is going to be coverage about both the police investigation (and possibly still a commission of inquiry) and also rebuilding, as in the case of fairly routine natural disasters like tropical cyclones and tornado outbreaks, where little, if anything, can be done to prevent them. (There the main lasting effects are usually reconstruction and lives affected, both of which should also follow from this disaster and are highly likely to receive coverage in reliable sources.) This of course is a man-made disaster (hence the investigations), but I also genuinely think its unusual, non-routine nature, as previously mentioned, combined with the guaranteed lasting effects I've just stated now, should protect it if this article is ever AfDed by anyone. ENEvery (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

These type of incidents require pressure on authorities to act with informed purpose without the distractions from power, money and/or connections. The questions raised above are pertinent, among a number of others, and are being being addressed by a number of interested parties in SA. It was, after all, similar past incidents worldwide that encouraged the development of international standards relating to the safe handling and conveying of dangerous goods. This incident supports the development of international standards and provides further evidence for strengthening these standards. Notable? Yes. Safetytrain (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

When I raised the above point, the death toll was considerably lower. I would probably say that the number of deaths is significant enough to merit an article. Unfortunately it looks like my concern about enduring significance remains valid. Park3r (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

41 as of today. But not forgotten. There are numerous authorities and civil organisations investigating and preparing to take action. There will be a flurry of media activity as these investigations and actions come to light. The hospital that originally estimated R18m damages is apparently back in full operation after only R3.3m repairs. Nonetheless, it appears there are numerous civil actions being instituted for damages from all parties and there seems to be something of an urgency to reveal the facts about the incident. Safetytrain (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Emergency department severe burns, but limited damage?

The article uses an early report as a source for the statement that many patients and staff inside the ED were severely burned, but later reports indicate that the damage to the ED was limited[2]. Park3r (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's another discrepancy that has been bothering me. I suspect fixing this will have to wait on more in-depth sources appearing, probably official in nature since newspapers don't seem to bother publishing corrections any more. Lesufi is now "considering" a provincial commission of inquiry if the police investigation stalls, so hopefully between the police and the province, we'll get a reliable, detailed and in-depth account of what happened sometime in the (hopefully near) future. ENEvery (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Independent sources and attribution

I’ve started clearly attributing statements derived from involved parties. They may well be accurate, however they need to be clearly attributed. Park3r (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Explosion section is biased towards the company

I would suggest a separate subsection section making it clear that it was the company's internal investigation that is being quoted. It is stated as fact when it makes allegations to deflect. This investigation's veracity and objectivity has not been disclosed. Stochos (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This could be a good idea. I’ve found instances in other articles where sites like IOL directly reference Wikipedia, meaning there’s a high risk of WP:CIRCULAR. Park3r (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A proper, comprehensive investigation will be difficult to complete in such a short space of time after the incident considering much of the physical evidence will have been destroyed in the explosion. An internal investigation is naturally subjective and deflective, particularly in the circumstances where death, injury and major damages have been inflicted. It should be noted that many of the media articles are based on interviews with people who, along with the interviewer, are not subject matter experts and do not fully understand the respective dangerous goods regulations and requirements. Safetytrain (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Was the railway line operational?

According to this source[3] the line was shut down in 2020 because of cable theft, and some of the sources state that it was on a list for rehabilitation. If the line wasn’t operational then the article should be updated, since the explosion wouldn’t have disrupted services. Park3r (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of this discrepancy, but can't find sources that say the line was already out of commission when the explosion happened. In fact, they all say the line was shut down by the explosion, including sources that pre-date me adding that information to this article. Yet pre-explosion sources do suggest the line was already inoperable ... but I can't find a way to incorporate that information without seeming to violate WP:OR. ENEvery (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe leave the sentence in an ambiguous state: the explosion affected the Germiston to Springs railway line? Park3r (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done so. And noticed in the process that the source doesn't actually say Prasa closed the line, but just that the line isn't operating 'due to the explosion'. ENEvery (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be moved to Boksburg explosion?

Checking on Google now, it seems "Boksburg tanker explosion" (entered with quotation marks to narrow it down only to webpages containing that exact phrase) brings up 144 000 results, while "Boksburg blast" brings up 184 000 and "Boksburg explosion" brings up 282 000 results. Disastrous explosions of any sort are not a common occurrence in South Africa (above ground at least, mining accidents are presumably more common), and to the best of my knowledge, no notable explosions have happened in Boksburg except this one.

Of course, I understand this event was very recent, and in light of that, the sheer number of results on Google suggests many may not be relevant to this article's topic. ENEvery (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Another discrepancy in reporting

According to early reports, 19 people were critically injured in the explosion. Yet, since then, far more than 19 people have died of their injuries. By definition, non-critical injuries rarely if ever result in death, so it seems the early reports were mistaken and the number should be higher. Yet, I can find absolutely no updates on this particular detail. After numerous early reports said 19 were critically injured, no journalists seem to have questioned the accuracy of that statement, and no one since has provided any updates, that I'm aware of.

I'm not sure what to do about this; simply calculating a new number based on the number who have since died would contradict the sources, violate WP:OR and there wouldn't even be any guarantee of accuracy. ENEvery (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - doing arithmetic on two different reports would be WP:OR. It's simpler to give just the current reported death toll. Zaian (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Was the sign illegible?

Although we need to mindful of WP:OR we also need to mindful of the quality of our sources. Google Street View, which is the source of the Citizen claim that the sign was illegible, shows that this was indeed the case, but only in one direction of travel. It appears to be legible in the other direction (which happens to be from the general direction of the N17).

Wikipedia should reflect what’s found in WP:RS but it shouldn’t perpetuate inaccurate or dubious claims either. (We also need to more broadly evaluate what sources currently qualify as WP:RS in South Africa but that’s a different discussion). Park3r (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a map, that bridge is rather far from the N17, actually. But, judging by the colour coding of the various streets, it seems likely to me that, realising he'd gotten onto the N17 headed in the opposite direction to his intended route, he got off onto Rondebult Road (a designated regional road, the R21) and followed it quite far north, seeing that the side roads couldn't handle a truck that size. (He does seem to have missed the opportunity turn around by turning first onto Leeuwpoort Street, then right onto Trichardts Road, right again onto Truter Street and left back onto Rondebult.) But it seems possible to me that he tried to turn around by taking Comet Street, then Palm Street and Hospital Street, getting stuck under the bridge trying to get back to the N17 to return to his route.

It seems to me that he should've continued down Comet Street – which runs over the railway as a road bridge, rather than going under it like Hospital Road does – and then gotten onto Commissioner Street and followed it until it joins with Rondebult Road. But it's been ages since I've been in that area, and the map I'm using (the one in the article's infobox, enlarged) doesn't seem to mark one-way streets**, so it's possible that the two 'solution routes' I've described wouldn't actually have been possible... (** Addendum 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC): And of course it's possible the route he took was the only one permitted to him by the municipality's transport plan, if such a plan exists, regardless of whether those other routes could have worked. Again, just to make a case that the direction of travel very well could have been toward the N17, and not away from it.)

Of course all of this is supposition that doesn't belong in the article itself. I'm just making a case for why it's possible this isn't a discrepancy at all. (Just the sources that don't go into enough detail basically.) ENEvery (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In the scenario described above, he would have accidentally been heading east on the N17, toward Swaziland, when he got off onto Rondebult and was possibly constrained by the street layout/weight limitations. ENEvery (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The sign reflected in the Citizen is a November 2021 image on the opposite side of the bridge to where the tanker entered. The November 2021 Google image shows a much clearer, although somewhat weathered height restriction sign on the tanker side of the bridge. Images taken before the explosion unfortunately do not reveal the current state of the sign, which is now probably damaged or destroyed. Safetytrain (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s what I thought. Do you have any insight into the route taken by the truck? The only sources I can find that aren’t in the article repeat the claim that he got onto the N17 from a rest stop[4]. What was the rest stop, and what route was he supposed to take? Park3r (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, details in this respect are sparse or haven't been questioned. Pertinent questions are being deflected with answers that "justify" the situation but do not clarify why the driver was some 4-5km travelling away from the N17 and how a Hospital Road route would achieve rejoining the N17. None of the routes suggested are suitable for a LPG tanker to drive through, and had he been on the N17 going in the wrong direction, where there are off ramps from the highway, generally there are also on ramps to proceed in the opposite direction. There is also no clarity on the rest stop, which, if actually used, is in an area removed from built up/residential areas to reduce any risk of these areas being affected by any incident. The driver's management are apparently either lacking information or being cautious not to provide information that could be considered incriminating.

It is a difficult situation to unravel as Infinite Transport is strictly speaking, the Operator in terms of the Road Traffic Act, but there is allowance for a third party to function as the Operator under a signed agreement. This is where Innovative Staffing Solutions, the Driver's employer comes in. It appears that ISS is functioning as the Operator on behalf of Infinite, which is probably why Infinite has been cleared of any "wrong doing". If this is the case, it is why ISS are the ones claiming internal investigation. They would then be responsible for route planning and monitoring of the Driver's activities. Safetytrain (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Working at heights?

This article repeats claims that the truck driver was qualified at “working at heights”. Unless I’m missing something, this seems to be irrelevant. Park3r (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is possibly a misquote as Professional Driving and working at heights are 2 separate and unrelated qualifications used in SA for drivers. The nature of a driver's tasks when working with tankers and other dangerous goods loads requires them to be trained on working at heights, which includes proper use of safety restraints when working on top of vehicles. Safetytrain (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede speculation

The lede contains speculation made soon after the accident from a minor political party (GOOD) and also seems to give undue weight to the internal investigation, and to the signage, which may or may not be relevant. The EFF is also a small party, and their viewpoint blaming the tanker company shouldn’t be given WP:UNDUE weight. I notice that the major political parties (ANC and DA) haven’t indulged in speculation and in the absence of an official investigation, it might be best to remove that sentence, and put the references into the Investigation section. Park3r (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve attributed the initial reactions from the EFF and Good and moved them down into the investigation section. They may even not belong there, but in a “reactions” section. Park3r (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The GOOD and EFF reactions were already covered, so I consolidated and moved them. Park3r (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates

It looks like the company that owns the truck hired an “independent auditor” which has “cleared it”. [ https://www.news24.com/amp/news24/southafrica/news/boksburg-tanker-blast-independent-auditing-company-clears-trucking-company-of-wrongdoing-20230107] The same article quotes a report from the municipality that states that the sign was legible and affixed to the bridge in December 2022.

UPDATE: I found a source (an article from The Star hosted on IOL) that made an attempt at journalistic scepticism, so I added this report to the article. The other sources seem to have regurgitated the report findings uncritically.[5] It looks like the original eNCA interviewer tried to get some answers, but didn’t nail down many specifics [6] Park3r (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates (March 2023)

Have there been any significant developments or updates? I haven't been able to find much via Google News. Has it been memory-holed? Park3r (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

I can't find any meaningful updates in the news. Has there been any movement? Park3r (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I found this SABC report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QLnpR6e9Nk which I've added as a source, but it appears as if this has well and truly been memory-holed. Park3r (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)