Talk:Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Iran connection?[edit]

Cyprus had attempted several times to offload a dangerous cargo of confiscated Iranian munitions that blew up on Monday killing 12, but was rebuffed by the United Nations, a senior official said on Tuesday. Attempting to fend off mounting criticism over Cyprus's worst peace-time disaster, authorities said they had tried in vain to get rid of the 98 containers of munitions they confiscated in 2009 from a ship sailing from Iran to Syria

more. 12 killed in Cyprus when Iranian arms depot explodes. As of right now there is very little mention and emphasis of Iranian involvement in this affair. I suggest these sources be used liberally to improve the article's accuracy. WikifanBe nice 10:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no "Iranian involvement in this affair". The explosives that blew up were confiscated from a boat originating from Iran two and a half years ago. That's the only connection to Iran. The rest of what you suggest is already in the article (I would know, I put it there!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Read the sources I posted Mitchell.

"Cyprus had attempted several times to offload a dangerous cargo of confiscated Iranian munitions that blew up on Monday killing 12, but was rebuffed by the United Nations, a senior official said on Tuesday."

Cyprus contacted UN about Iranian weapons, UN ignored these calls. Shouldn't this be in the article?
The Iranian government's complicity in this tragedy must me emphasized.
He said, however, Cyprus had no choice but take the arms cargo in after its suggestions it went to the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon was rejected, and it received no answer from the Security Council that the material be sent to Germany or Malta.
Right now the article has no mention of Lebanon or resolutions against Iran about this weapons. The timeline needs to be revised now that we have a background and lead-up to the explosion, right? WikifanBe nice 21:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think one of us has got the wrong end of the stick. The explosives were being shipped from Iran to Syria, but they were seized by the US Navy, who left them on Cyprus. So the origin of the explosives is just background. They happen to be Iranian, but the Iranians didn't have anything to do with the explosion. The Cypriot government claims it asked for the UN to remove the containers, and the US, UK, Germany and France all offered to remove or dispose of them for the Cypriots. That's in the article, under "Background". I'm not sure what else you want added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Mitchell, Cyprus explicitly describes the weapons as Iranian. Not "they happen to be Iranian." Cyprus says the weapons were Iranian and thus falled on whatever UNSC resolution Iran is currently under. The peacekeeping force in Lebanon rejected the weapons and the Security Council said nothing. Right now the article just says "The government had instead requested that the UN effect the removal, but claimed that its request had been rejected." WikifanBe nice 00:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but how is it relevant to the explosion? The explosion would have been just the same if it was Cypriot gunpowder or anybody else's. The only reason it's mentioned at all is because it's useful background on how the gunpowder came to be there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Gunpowder is a totally different issue. The reality is the weapons were designed and manufactured in Iran. These weapons were confirmed by the Cyprus government. Cyprus petitioned the United Nations and peacekeeping forces in Lebanon to do something about it - they rebuffed the requests. Right now the article says very little about Iran's involvement and complicity in this disaster, and the UN mention is not fair to the sources. WikifanBe nice 11:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The petitioning of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon would certainly be worth including—which source is it in? There isn't any Iranian complicity, though. The weapons originated in Iran and were originally intended for Syria. They were intercepted on the way by the US Navy and left on Cyprus, where it seems Iran had nothing further to do with them, so I don't understand how we can claim Iranian complicity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Which source is it? I posted it above, here: Cyprus had no choice but take the arms cargo in after its suggestions it went to the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon was rejected, and it received no answer from the Security Council that the material be sent to Germany or Malta. The introduction should include the source of the exploding munitions (Iran) and Cyprus' prior griefing to the UN, UNSC, and peacekeeping forces. The munions were a violation of the UN ban on Iranian arms exports according to the associated press. WikifanBe nice 04:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder?[edit]

Was it really gunpowder that was inside the containers? I think some clarification could be useful (explosives, munition etc.). What do the sources say? Tupsumato (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources that specify all say gunpowder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that? All the sources I see specifically refer to the munitions as an arms cache, not "gunpowder." WikifanBe nice 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Footnotes 1 and 3 in the current version (the BBC and the Cyprus Mail) both explicitly mention gunpowder. I had originally left it at "explosives", but someone thought it was necessary to specify because apparently most explosives wouldn't be affected by flames (I don;t know how true that is, it's not my area of expertise). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I put in gunpowder because that's what the sources said, but someone took it out. I agree that most secondary explosives don't go off when burned - a primary explosive (blasting cap) is needed. And as much of a cluster fuck as this whole thing seems to have been, if someone store those explosives with blasting caps attached I'd count that as terrorism, not incompetence! Wnt (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of 'gunpowder' in this case might have been as an (inaccurate) shorthand for an Aluminium Powder, or other, rocket propellant. IIRC, at the time of the original seizure, there was speculation that at least some of the confiscated shipment was propellant and other material that could be used in the construction of rockets. 83.71.99.69 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

houses destroyed[edit]

The Article claims several houses were destroyed, displacing over 150 people. That is an average of over 20 people per house, surely a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked the sentence, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for 20, 30, 40 people to live in a large block of flats. Where DO these ignorant nitpickers come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.223.241 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Damage[edit]

How can there be 2 billion euros of damage to a 700 million euro power station? Presumably the larger figure is the total of damage, not the station alone? 203.161.145.1 (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i think it includes the losses to the economy as a whole. power cuts are ruining everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.182.36 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus history[edit]

Regarding this sentence:

The Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion was the worst peacetime military accident in Cypriot history. (BBC)

Cyrpus is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, going back well before 6000 BC (8000 years ago), pre-Bronze age. There is little to no written history for the vast majority of Cyprus' history. For any source to claim that this is the biggest accident in Cyprian history is patently ridiculous, we simply don't know. Obviously the BBC meant modern history, when Cyprus became a nation state with its own navy. This article needs to clarify that point. Otherwise it reads silly and ridiculous. BTW the BBC never uses the word "history" and is thus ambiguous in meaning. We are not bound to repeat or create mistakes in sources if the issue can be clarified. Since my edit was reverted, I'll leave it to the author of the article to decide what he wants, encyclopedic accuracy or journalistic drama. As it reads now, it's historically inaccurate, and doesn't reflect the ambiguity of the BBC source. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 'recorded history' instead? 83.71.99.69 (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I went with something similar to that. Does anybody have any objections? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's better, but still problematic as the BBC source is ambiguous and doesn't say "ever recorded". If we're just guessing here, I would read it to mean ever since Cyprus was a nation state with a Navy - the word "Cyprus" meaning the nation, not the island. Really you need a better source than a single ambiguous sentence in a BBC article for something this central to the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So someone thinks there could have been a worse peacetime military accident in, say, 3000 BC? Give me strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.223.241 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility?[edit]

Latest reports indicate that the Cypriot Navy had no say at all in the running of the munitions dump, and apparently the National Guard in general had refused any responsibility for the munitions at least as far back as August 6th 2009 (Cyprus Mail, July 12th). This should be reflected in the article. 83.71.99.69 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. The navy are blaming the government and the government are blaming the UN. The UN says it wasn't their problem and so on... I'll see if I can add something on the blame game they're all playing later today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

... The latest news reports are stating that the government already knew about the materials included in the containers and the fact that several navy officers have repeatedly send notifications to both the chief of the Cyprus army, the minister of internal affairs and even the president of state. The thing is no one wants to handle the responsibility because its huge. Cyprus politicians have a chronic issue in taking responsibility. In this case the man in charge for clarifying an "objective" "committee" review is:

a. First cousin with the Minister of Finance (government Christofias) Mr. Harilaos Stavrakis

b. Mr. Polybius is the brother in law with Mr Kypros Chrysostomides. Remember that the Spokesman has been a member of AKEL - Left New Forces and the Minister for Justice and Public Order (Christofias government) during the getaway lifers Anthony Prokopios Kita (Al Capone) who "lived" for months a private clinic. The Spokesman resigned from the position of Minister upon the information we saw in Case Kita.

c. Mr. Polyviou is the lawyer defending the company Ajet Aviation (formerly Helios) in the sensational trial (Helios Airways Flight 522) of the plane crash that took place 6 years ago and still has not been found guilty of causing death in 121 people.

d. The statement today by Polybius that "the process will take years," already predisposes negative sense of justice of the people who for years waiting to finally punish someone for the mistakes and crimes committed by negligence.

e. The fact that the "committee" is single - that consists only of Mr. Polyviou - predisposes negatively on people's sense of law, since Mr. Polyviou will be the exclusive operator of the investigation. If the President wanted to win even a little confidence could easily: 1) to appoint other people to "committee" in order to exert some control among members of the Committee, 2) people to come clearly from neutral space (or still come from the opposition, if the President has a clean nest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpillos (talkcontribs) 07:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a statement on the National Guard website as follows:

"Ανακοίνωση Τύπου ΥΠΑΜ, 13 Ιουλίου 2011

Το Υπουργείο Άμυνας ανακοινώνει ότι όλα τα εισερχόμενα και εξερχόμενα έγγραφα φυλάγονται στο αρχείο του ΥΠΑΜ σύμφωνα με τις νενομισμένες διαδικασίες.

Σε καμία περίπτωση δεν καταστρέφονται ούτε παραποιούνται με οποιοδήποτε τρόπο ούτε εντός ούτε εκτός του Υπουργείου Άμυνας.

Όλο το έγγραφο υλικό που αφορά τη φύλαξη του φορτίου στη Ναυτική Βάση «Ευάγγελος Φλωράκης» έχει δεσμευτεί στο Κεντρικό Αρχείο και από το πρωί παραδίδεται στους ποινικούς ανακριτές."

I think the babelfish translation is a bit suspect, but it appears the thrust of the statement is that all hard copy records (including entry logs) from the naval base have been retrieved and delivered to the Central Archives (fast work if true), ready for inspection by criminal investigators. 83.71.98.198 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, it's also the same statement that claims that there has been absolutely no destruction of documentation either within or outside the Cypriot MOD. Take that as you will. 86.41.243.17 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming?[edit]

Should the article be renamed '2011 Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion', in accordance with the WikiProject Disaster management naming convention? 83.71.99.69 (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. WikifanBe nice 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
No. The "2011" is needed only as a disambiguator, but since there are no other notable explosions at the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base, the dismabiguation is unnecessary. This also seems to be the emerging as the name most commonly used by the media. 2011 Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion should probably redirect, here, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category change?[edit]

I'm just wondering, should the article be moved from the Low-importance Cypriot articles category to the High-importance Cypriot articles one? Given the severe affect that the disaster has had (and continues to have) on both the Republic of Cyprus's economy and it's defence, not to mention the political fallout? 83.71.99.69 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I misunderstood the category listing. 83.71.99.69 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in that category because of the {{WikiProject Cyprus}} banner near the top. You're quite welcome to ask at that project's talk page for a re-assessment. It might be worth leaving it for a while, though, until we have a better idea of the longer-term impact of the disaster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Need more.[edit]

How about:

  • some 2009 references about the seizing of the containers
  • some particular Wikileaks references where the subject is mentioned. 69.72.27.210 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a big deal to write something, perhaps a separate section, about seizing the containers based in this article — there are references as well and you can find more with Google. Tupsumato (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Previous name of base?[edit]

Would anyone here know what the previous name of the base was, prior to it being renamed Evangelos Florakis Naval Base? Would it happen to have been the Mari Naval Base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.98.198 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've absolutely no idea, but I've seen it referred to that way in headlines. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Evangelos Florakis is the name of the base proper. Mari (Greek: Μαρί) is the name of the locality and of the nearby village. Hence, military communications refer to the base as "Evangelos Florakis", while geographically it's probably more correct to refer to it as Mari. The terms "the naval base Evangelos Florakis" and "the naval base in Mari" are the most correct, one denoting the base by name and the other by locality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.143.121 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Similar example: "USAF base Andersen" and "USAF base in Guam". Talking about the base itself you'd call it "Andersen", but in any broader context, e.g. historical, you'd say "Guam".

Cause of fire[edit]

Initially the article said that a small bush fire reached the containers and set off the explosion. This indeed reflected the first reports in the media on July 11. Later it became known and was widely reported that the bush fire was started by small explosions in one of the containers, the one that was already damaged since the week before the accident, and that it was those small explosions that eventually set off the big one. Thus, the bush fire was really irrelevant to the accident, it was just a minor side-effect. I corrected the article accordingly (12:17, 13 July 2011), with references, and commented "correction of the chain of events". For some reason most of my edit has been reverted and the incorrect chain of events has been re-introduced. Please either explain this or fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.143.121 (talk)

Explosives contain a component that when heated releases oxygen. This increases the force of the explosion. Presumably, leaving them in the sun for 2½ years resulted in the eventual release of oxygen that bloated the containers which ruptured because of the high pressure. At that moment a spark could be created... A video clip on the internet shows several "small" explosions. So, your edit was correct. I recommend you find more info and repeat your edit. And welcome to the frustrating world of Wikipedia. Articles of no controversial nature can be trusted as accurate, but articles like this one are another story! Q43 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed that text, because it wasn't supported by any of the references, including the ones you (83.163...) provided. If you can source it, then by all means please add it back in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
References that support the bush fire are unreliable... Q43 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary to MV Monchegorsk article[edit]

Could someone familiar with the subject check the summary of the incident in the article about the ship that brought the containers to Cyprus, the Monchegorsk? Tupsumato (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Localization[edit]

Many times in article is mentioned that the nearby village was Zygi and after Zygi was Mari. This is completely wrong. The base is neighboring with Mari village and Zygi is about 5km away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.200.193.10 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources modified on Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)