Talk:Surfside condominium collapse/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Surfside condominium collapse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Units

Appears to me from these three links [1], [2], [3] that that "136 units" mentioned were specifically in the South building, not the combination of the three buildings. The North building contains 111 units and the East building contains 99 units. Did the entire South building fall? If so, 136 units were destroyed, not just 55. General Ization ^Talk 17:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Only part of the building collapsed. It was a partial collapse. SecretName101 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I'm trying to clarify whether the partial collapse represented the total loss of the South tower, while the East and North towers remained standing, or whether the buildings are actually separate and a portion of the South tower remains intact. General Ization ^Talk 17:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like the South tower and the other two towers were effectively integrated into one structure on the site. General Ization ^Talk 17:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

− East and North are separate buildings to its North. The “Bluegreen Vacations Solara Surfside resort” lays in between the South and East Buildings. SecretName101 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. General Ization ^Talk 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible causes?

I wonder if the Mayor's statement that the roof was being repaired should be considered a "possible cause" at this point in time - there is no "possible cause" that has been identified anywhere as far as I am aware. The mayor's statement may describe a circumstance surrounding the event but the inference that this was in any shape or form a "possible cause" is premature at best. Allan 24.138.44.20 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Premature. Moved to the Background section for now. General Ization ^Talk 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The building has been sinking since the 1990's per at least 6 online sources. Doesn't mean that the sinking is the cause. It could be something else. But there was sinking. Corona80 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This has to have an official/technical grounding. — Pietadè (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And, as for the cause (currently: 21:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)), perhaps some migratory birds... — Pietadè (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

International reactions sub-section is missing references

This article is on the front page. An entire unreferenced sub-section is equivalent to an orange tag. Needs a quick fix. 202.8.114.21 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The subsection contains appropriate citations as of 5 minutes after your comment. I think the addition of references was occurring in parallel with your observation. General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording: rescued from what?

In this revision, it says:

At least 35 people were rescued from being trapped in the building,

So they were rescued from building parts that did not collapse, but was in danger of collapse?
Were they rescued "from being trapped", meaning debris had to be removed in order to access the survivors?

I'm guessing it's the first variant... --Keimzelle (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There might be no stairs in the standing part. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, many of those rescued were said to have been removed using cranes ("cherry pickers") operated by fire/rescue personnel, so were not in the debris field but in standing parts of the building. General Ization ^Talk 15:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

New death toll

MSM states 3 people dead https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-building-collapse-latest-3-dead-as-many-as-99-missing/ar-AALnGxF?ocid=uxbndlbing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.103.211 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have other sources for this? Right now, the sources that follow this statement on the main article still all only stated "1 dead" and I'm having trouble finding any sources other than this one that give the total as three. I also feel like any statement on the deaths should be proceeded with "at least," since the actual total dead is unknown. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

AP and CNN are sticking with "at least one" fatality as of 11:50 pm EDT Thursday. General Ization ^Talk 03:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Good luck sneaking that past the anti-"at least" editors here. Clearly it should be "at least," but they won't go for it. Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's pessimistic to anticipate other people's deaths, perhaps unprovably jinxy, but I'm done caring enough to fight about it and will look the other way, if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the use of the term "at least" in any way necessarily implies an anticipation of other people's deaths. It's more that simply saying "1 person was killed" without any qualifier itself seems to carry the implication that there were no other deaths. At least, that's how it seems to me. In any case, I'm fine it as it reads now, that "1 person was confirmed killed." ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Just reporting the confirmed dead and along with the missing persons makes sense, per WP:NOTNEWS. Here we can mention the numbers as the ongoing rescue operation progresses and if readers want interpretations of these numbers they can follow the news. Lklundin (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

During mass-casualty accidents, police are usually quick to indicate a number of survivors who were taken to hospital. If 99 people were assumed to be in the building and police state only "1 dead" (who was recovered from the debris), it can be safely assumed that the large majority of the 99 people are, sadly, dead. But Wikipedia doesn't like this, because for certain self-evident truths there are no citations.--Keimzelle (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to be gruesome, but during the rescue phase, if rescuers encounter body parts or what they confirm to be a body that cannot be readily accessed, extracted or identified, they will not spend the time to remove them (this comes during the recovery phase) and they may not include them in the official count until they can do so. I suspect the locations of at least 2 of the 3 dead reported above were known to rescuers yesterday (hence this report) but were not included in the official count until they were able to access and remove them relatively safely, as layers were probed and/or removed during the search for survivors. Media are now reporting "at least 4" dead. General Ization ^Talk 14:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuits about cracked walls

It's been reported that a condo unit owner sued the building's association in both 2001 and 2015 for cracks on the outside wall of her unit that caused $15,000 in water damage. This sounds like it may be notable to include: https://www.aol.com/news/collapsed-miami-condo-built-barrier-224716510.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cause-miami-condo-collapse-unclear-experts-say-barrier-islands-present-n1272316

"One condo owner sued the unit association for failing to fix the cracks in the outside wall of her unit in 2015, according to a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County. The condo owner, who could not be reached for comment, said the cracks led to water damage that cost $15,000. The court documents noted that because the cracks were a structural issue the building association was liable for the expense.

The condo owner had previously filed a lawsuit against the building association in 2001 due to a similar issue. The two sides settled outside of court, but that kind of cracking is described as “of interest” in the county’s Structural Recertification Form."

Would this be better suited in the "Background" section, the "Possible Causes" section, or not include at all? Sk5893 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As an attorney for the condominium association noted (per video I watched, don't have the citation handy), virtually all large buildings have water leakage issues of one sort or another, and it would be unfair to suggest this was being strongly considered as a cause. Let's wait to see if this angle gets broader and/or more detailed coverage and/or until officials suggest it is a major line of inquiry. General Ization ^Talk 20:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification for worst if death toll climbs

If the confirmed Death Toll passes 98, it'll be the deadliest building collapse in American History, ahead of the 1922 Knickerbocker Theatre collapse. If the death toll passes 114 deaths, it'll be the deadliest (Non-Dam) structural failure in American history, passing the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse. This would also make it the 4th worst building collapse in Modern History, behind the Corralejas Stadium Collapse, Sampoong Department Store collapse, and the Collapse of Rana Plaza.

This sort of listing nonsense was common after the Beirut incident last year, so I wanted to establish this now. (Also, that all excludes acts of war and terrorism for obvious reasons. Forgot to specify 'accidental') 206.174.216.170 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The link relevant to the Knickerbocker Theatre collapse is Knickerbocker Theatre (Washington, D.C.). Also, the 1980 collapse of the Corralejas Stadium is discussed (in one sentence) at Sincelejo#History. Oddly, with a death toll exceeding 200, it does not seem to have an article here. General Ization ^Talk 18:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, the "nonesense" will have been started with your post. Primergrey (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Before" image

I propose the addition of this 2015 photo, further down the article, in order to show what the building looked like pre-collapse. User:General Ization is of the opinon that it adds little. Would appreciate some opinions on this. Wodgester (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct, I don't think it adds much versus images already here, and those available at our linked sources. An image like this might be very helpful, but I'm generally hesitant to post screenshots of content from mapping and/or satellite imaging services to Wikimedia Commons as I think it isn't really fair use under the terms of CC-BY-SA. I'm guessing media are paying royalties for satellite and other images used in "before and after" montages. General Ization ^Talk 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"As many as"

The phrase, "...as many as 159 missing", is, I think, not being used well here. It says "at least 35 injured" but "as many as 159 missing". As many as sets a maximum while at least sets a minimum. If it's a matter of the 159 missing being confirmed, just write 159 missing. I'll be changing it if no one responds. Primergrey (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Our sources are either saying 159 or "up to 159" (it varies by source). It's unclear whether 159 is a final, reliable number of the missing (it was 99 just last night), but it's clear we should no longer say "at least 159", which is the logical opposite of "up to 159". Seems to me "as many as 159" just about sums up what we know now. General Ization ^Talk 00:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mayor Cava: "[159 people] have been identified as possibly being on the site... So those are people that maybe live there, but we don't know whether they were there at the time." [6] General Ization ^Talk 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would not insinuate that the 159 could be the maximum death toll. In addition, it was not possible to contact these 159 to ascertain their whereabouts. And they were in any way tied to that building by third persons. The number of 159 will rather rise, for example due to undocumented immigrants and because people do things like having affairs and they rather not tell where they're spending the night. For these reasons, I'd write something like "according to ____, the fate of 159 individuals, who are assumed to have stayed at the building, is unknown".--Keimzelle (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, Mayor Cava has indicated that the number 159 represents those who were believed to have been in the building who have not been located elsewhere. Presumably this will already have accounted for previously unknown residents, guests and/or visitors, after interviewing known residents and building management. I don't think there's any need to twist ourselves into pretzels to arrive at a wording that will never be proven incorrect and need to be changed. As the information is updated, we will update the article. It is still most likely that this figure (the missing, versus the dead, located and/or rescued) will go down, rather than up, as people are found to be in one of the three latter groups. It certainly will not remain the same, as some (probably large) number of them will be found as either survivors or casualties. General Ization ^Talk 17:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Official count now at 5 dead and 156 missing. [7][8] General Ization ^Talk 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Partially

Currently (23:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)) "partially collapsed at about 1:30 a.m. EDT on June 24, 2021." kind of disregards "9 secs later" for the following part — Pietadè (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. The entire event started and ended at approximately 0130. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Related (in which way, remains unknown) or not, there is/are still standing parts, the fate of which can currently only speculated — Pietadè (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The fate of the still-standing portion of the tower will be addressed here as part of the aftermath of the building collapse, whether it falls on its own, is demolished as unsafe, or is rehabilitated (as unlikely as that may be). General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Partial doesn't seem like the right word. A section of the building completely collapsed. --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood, but the structure as a whole did not collapse; this makes it a partial collapse from a disaster response and forensic engineering perspective. The fact that only a section of the building collapsed, shearing away from another portion of the structure, will probably prove to be significant. General Ization ^Talk 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What similar incidents have been termed "partial collapses"? --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Two examples: 2020 Brooklyn gym building collapse,1985 Wedbush Building collapse in Los Angeles. They are fairly rare, which is part of the reason that the correct terminology is important. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2020 partial collapse (under construction) in Houston. Partial collapses of buildings under construction are much more common since the stability of the structure's design is unproven and poor engineering or execution of just one element (e.g., a load-bearing pier or beam) can cause instability. General Ization ^Talk 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And

looking at the footage of the accident: why the hell the centre part was the first to go, in some countries these kind of structures are regulative-ly binded to be binded (r-ly binded to be binded) to each other, so, about 9 secs later it became more apparent that's not the case (to those, fellow humans, who were inhabiting the left side), and, has anyone tried to master, say, a Lego building (no need to achieve M, PhD in engineering) of similar kind. Just a thought. — Pietadè (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And2 — there were living lights in these dying parts of the "thing", as a mark of living people, should this be mentioned? — Pietadè (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If tensions build up, for example due to differential sinking of the building, I expect the fracture site to be near the middle. Doesn't surprise me at all. The larger the distance between two points, the bigger the difference in downward forces between the two points. These images help to explain it: http://www.seismicresilience.org.nz/topics/seismic-science-and-site-influences/earthquake-hazards/ground-settlement/ --Keimzelle (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The building was known to be and is already described as a residential building. I can't think of a good reason to report in this article that there were lights on in the building at 1:30 a.m., just prior to the collapse. General Ization ^Talk 16:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Video "evidence"

Many are saying that the videos posted of a building collapsing is not that same building. I added a questionable label, but something to monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.242.202 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disturbing video shows moment building collapses in Florida, Hollywood?
Currently viewing live in BBC, from the screen..., ~99 missing...
58 minutes ago: Miami building collapse leaves 99 people unaccounted for (about 1/2 of the whole structure?) (for those not familiar with BBC politics: they do change the title/heading (and the content), yet the URI remains unchanged for some (unknown) time).
Smth similar to bank account link — the link remains the same, the content yet not, one may dream... — Pietadè (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the label. The local Fox News and CBS affiliates in Miami should have been able to recognize the view as showing the correct structure, and we have no reason to deem them unreliable. General Ization ^Talk 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The east section (closest to the beach) of the L-shaped building collapsed. Facts707 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

~~Yes. What does that have to do with the video? General Ization ^Talk 04:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)~~

You should replace the video with this video https://www.youtube.com/embed/iSwcf0IEntI?start=5 Because in this video there is a broader view of the disaster from other angles. אדומיניק (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the original Youtube link. It's important that we use the least-edited version available of any video we cite, and to, whenever possible, make sure that the provenance of the video is clearly known and reported. This obvious composite of several video sources does not clearly identify many of them, and so violates that principle. The Fox 13 video seems to be the most authoritative version. General Ization ^Talk 17:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

YouTube collapse video link

The link (https://www.youtube.com/embed/iSwcf0IEntI?start=5) is no doubt edited (the accident itself is repeated).
Apparently not the first and not the least of this kind... — Pietadè (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the original Youtube link. It's important that we use the least-edited version available of any video we cite, and to, whenever possible, make sure that the provenance of the video is clearly known and reported. This obvious composite of several video sources does not clearly identify many of them, and so violates that principle. The Fox 13 video seems to be the most authoritative version. General Ization ^Talk 17:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

State of Emergency Order

Appear to be at 4:33PM per this copy of the local state of emergency order: <https://documents.miamidade.gov/mayor/emergency-orders/06.24.21-surfside-state-of-emergency-declaration.pdf> — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have moved this to its own section here on the Talk page since it doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion of the exact time of the collapse. General Ization ^Talk 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And added the citation to the content concerning Mayor Cava's declaration. General Ization ^Talk 21:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Possible causes" before "Collapse"?

@Phillip Samuel: Seems totally non-intuitive to me. Why would we discuss potential causes of an event in the body before we describe the event that they potentially caused, and which is the actual subject of the article? If anything, the potential causes, I believe, still belong at the end of the article because their relevance is, at this point, still speculative (albeit speculation by experts). We should expose the known facts first. General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, since you suggest that the potential causes are part of the background (though I believe their actual relevancy remains to be seen), I suggest demoting the section so it actually becomes part of the Background section. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And have boldly done so. General Ization ^Talk 00:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the possible causes section should be a distinct section at the very bottom. I agree that the collapse should be immediately discussed. It is my view that the possible causes section should be merged under one 'Background' section, as the former section simply elaborates on the latter (which is the building, its repairs and underlying problems). Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It is bizarre to discuss the possible causes of a collapse even before that collapse is reported. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The 'possible causes' section is more or less an elaboration on the background on the buildnig itself. It should be completley merged under Background with no subheading. As the causes haven't been definitely determined, it is improper to have a separate section and speculate on what possibly caused the collapse. Any future investigation that determines what the causes are can be put under a separation 'investigation' heading at the bottom in the future. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the inclusion of any of the discussion of potential causes in any section that isn't headed "Possible causes", because that has the effect of elevating their relevancy to a certainty. Keep in mind that, especially now that litigation is known to have started, it will probably be months, if not years, before there is a final determination and we know the true cause. This would make these potential causes, and the subsequent investigation of them, part of the Aftermath section. General Ization ^Talk 01:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Also: we are not speculating about possible causes. We are reporting on expert speculation as widely reported by our sources, in many cases now as the headline on this event. General Ization ^Talk 01:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think, hopefully without belaboring the point, that you are confusing the Background section, which provides the background of the structure in order to understand what it is, where it is, and what has happened to it recently, with the background concerning the collapse, which we do not yet know with certainty and will not know for some time. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Any factor that is definitely determined by an investigation and ligitation as causing the collapse should be at the bottom of the article under an investigation/aftermath section. Possible causes should not be under an 'investigation' section unless it has been reported that investigations definitely found them to be root causes of the collapse. Otherwise, background information on the building and already reported underlying structural issues should be in the beginning under the 'background' heading. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for more input here before acting on your recommendation. If we were to try to establish a consensus version based on just the three of us who have contributed to the discussion so far, I think it pretty clear that your solution would not be that version. General Ization ^Talk 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The "Possible causes" of a tragedy are looked for once the basic facts are known, and the article should keep that logic. Moreover, the investigation will take months, perhaps years, with each report generating new assertions and paragraphs. Kahlores (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Add: Let's take for example the Grenfell Tower fire article, which seems well-structured. It only deals with the "Direct causes" at section 6, after 5. "Aftermath". Which makes sense: first the event is described, then the investigation about it. However, an element that goes in Philip's favor and may help bring consensus here, is that a basic description of key elements in the building is covered in section 1 "Background". Such a divide could be used here: the building had such and such characteristics we'll delve into later in the article. Kahlores (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking your suggestion to heart, I have moved some of the more specific information about the building that collapsed to the Collapse section, and the information on the recent recertification process and roof repairs to the demoted Possible causes section. Could I ask you to clarify where you think that section should reside (for now)? General Ization ^Talk 02:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

just like you said: the potential causes, I believe, still belong at the end of the article because their relevance is, at this point, still speculative which is also the logic used for the Grenfell Tower fire (section 5 is "Aftermath", section 6 is "Direct causes"). Kahlores (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Event time

In regard to the "1:30" time that was here, the last reference I checked and added calls the start of the event "1:20", and calls out that the fire department was already engaged at "01:23"; so I adjusted the article. If more recent sources are more accurate, feel free to revert or further adjust - I have a feeling the early sources were rounding. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give the Herald some extra credibility on this point. However, I think we need to find a better link. While the presentation of the timeline is interesting, it uses some advanced HTML features that may not reproduce properly on some browsers and mobile devices. It'd be better to use a source that makes this statement in its narrative content without all the special effects. General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: I've got this one from the same publisher: "the time that Miami-Dade Fire Rescue first responded to a call for help at the condominium tower" <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article252324218.html |access-date=27 June 2021}}</ref>. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that that story, which ran only hours after the original event, says that the first report of the collapse occurred at 0123 EDT rather than 0130. At some point, I think we should add brief content (probably one sentence) to the article to address the varying estimates as to the time the collapse occurred. This confusion is not uncommon (see 9/11); we should own it and address it, since so many sources, including many cited here, say 0130. General Ization ^Talk 20:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: I'm trying to find a more reliable/precise source, maybe "between 1:20 and 1:30". There is a live video of the collapse, but it doesn't have a visible timestamp. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for any specific result, would just like to be what is most accurate. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Let's see if others have thoughts on the question. General Ization ^Talk 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: As recently as 10 p.m. EDT this evening, writers for the Herald are still using phrases like "[the collapse] which occurred around 1:30 a.m. Thursday" ([9]). This leads me to think that they are, as you suspected, "rounding" to the nearest half-hour, which is not incorrect, just less precise. I'm not sure we shouldn't adopt the same approach, since the majority of our sources seem to be doing so. The difference between 0123 and 0130 is pretty much semantic to most readers. General Ization ^Talk 02:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"around 1:30" does seem to be the most leading time now. We'll probably get more precise information when the transcripts from 911 and the video timestamps are eventually published. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed the time of the collapse here back to "approximately 1:30 a.m." to be consistent with nearly every cited source, but added a footnote to call attention to the fact that the exact time was apparently prior to 1:23 a.m. per the Herald's timeline. General Ization ^Talk 14:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Surfside City Data

Surfside now has a dedicated page to info about the tower, should we perhaps make more mention of it in the article rather than placing it in the external links? There's a lot of info they've collected that could be useful to someone, and putting that at the way bottom seems odd when it seems like a very useful page. Kasper221 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kasper221: The mayor's commitment to compile and publish the information on the town's Web site is already mentioned in the Aftermath section, and as an external link it belongs in the External links section. General Ization ^Talk 15:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Typo

Second paragraph Background: William M. Friedman & Associates Architects, Inc. was the architect for the project's 1979 contact drawings Should be: contract drawings BillW435 (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed General Ization ^Talk 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Developers of Florida tower accused of paying off officials

According to the NY Post "developers of the Miami condo tower that collapsed were once accused of paying off local officials to get permits for the site — which needed $15 million in repairs just to bring it to code, a new report says".

https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/developers-of-fla-tower-were-accused-of-paying-off-officials/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:270a:6000:a170:cb38:c57f:3bad (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that shady backroom deals that ~~apparently~~ allegedly occurred prior to the building being built in the late 1970s or early 1980s are barely relevant to the collapse of the building in 2021. The NYPost seems to be weaving this and the $15 million figure for repairs to the modern building together to suggest a new scandal. The New York Post is generally sensationalist in its reporting. We should wait to see if this receives any significant coverage in more mainstream sources such as the Miami Herald. General Ization ^Talk 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Cadena search team

This is interesting. Not really enough in this Miami Herald article to justify adding it here, but it sounds like the nonprofit Cadena search team (trained in Israel, at least one member and his search dog from Mexico) could qualify for its own Wikipedia article. "Cadena has responded to more than 1,000 natural disasters and humanitarian crises in 26 countries since its founding in 2005". Seven team members (eight, including the dog) on-site in Surfside. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

mathing this: 2021-2005 = 16 years. 16 * 365.25 = 5844 days -> 1000 disasters over 5844 days is one disaster every 5.844 days. That’s 1-2 per week. I doubt very much that they define disaster/crises the same way i do. Not saying they’re illegitimate, but the claim of aiding 1000 different things over 16 years seems a tad extraordinary to me. 75.163.146.225 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

More information at https://cadena.ngo/en/. If their claim is illegitimate, they're awfully vocal about it. General Ization ^Talk 16:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that humanitarian crises are continuously occurring throughout the world, and can take less obvious forms, such as absence or failure of pumps to supply potable water to rural or remote villages, drought and famine. Relatively few of them regularly make the news in the "first world". "Responding" can take the form of sending equipment, supplies, and/or funds, not necessarily just people. General Ization ^Talk 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Data availability/accessibility

Read/(mainly listened) just an/a article/video — RUSS BYNUM and FREIDA FRISARO. Another body found in condo rubble raises death toll to 5 with 156 unaccounted for. AP — (“Sorry, this content is not available in your region.”) — took me some 3 or so attempts to read this via Tor... — Pietadè (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The link to the WMTW-TV Web site you linked to doesn't currently appear in the article, so I'm not sure why it's relevant to mention this here. Various Web hosts and content providers may place restrictions on international regions from which their content may be accessed. There is no way for editors here to predict or test availability from a particular region if we are not in that region. General Ization ^Talk 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why I added "via Tor", and it is quite easy to find/look, from which country Tor accesses the article. — Pietadè (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Structural engineering information

I found this article which discusses how building collapses are extremely rare in the U.S. and that the way in which the building collapsed was unique and stuff like that that I think the article really should include. Half the reason this collapse is so notable is because it's such an extraordinarily rare occurrence, and the article does a poor job of explaining that. However, I'm not sure how exactly to integrate this information into the article. Would anyone be willing to take a stab at incorporating some of this information? Mlb96 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article but, as you say, very tricky. I think John Pistorino's thoughts (under the 3rd subheading) are probably more worthy of integration than those of Glenn Bell, who, although qualified, is really only observing from a distance and has little more specific information than we do. Pistorino, though, was involved in devising the "recertification" process we mention in Possible causes and sounds like he may be involved in an investigation. Wodgester (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really needed or appropriate here, as I wouldn't expect someone would come to this article to learn about building collapses generally. Among our citations we have links to some explainers (e.g., [10]) that may help. A better place would be Structural integrity and failure#Champlain Towers (which would definitely benefit from some expansion). General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Ping @Mlb96 since the comment was a while ago. Feel free to remove.) General Ization ^Talk 20:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk's conspiracy theory

The paragraph stating that this is "domestic terrorism" according to "Many", in which the only source is Charlie Kirk, has no business in an encyclopedic article. Smithbcs (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. We are here to provide facts (about the collapse), not a platform for fringe theories that are irrelevant to the current disaster. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(Besides, according to that source, Kirk expressed his theory on Friday, before much of anything was known as to any of the potential causes. Who knows if even he believes that now.) General Ization ^Talk 00:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Casualty list

@Ag212021: Let's not, please, start listifying the information concerning each casualty as they are identified. If, as we sadly expect, the number of casualties will rapidly and significantly increase, this will become an exceptionally long section of the article, and consensus generally at articles concerning events (natural disasters, mass shootings, etc.) with high death tolls is to not have a section naming all of the casualties (in part for privacy reasons with regard to victims and their families, also WP:NOTNEWS). ~~While they are in the single digits, it's fine to list them in a single sentence, as you did before.~~ General Ization ^Talk 03:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It also almost inevitably leads to the addition of mini-bios for each of the victims (as newspapers often produce), which further bloats the article, moves us away from our primary focus, the event itself, and potentially exposes the victims and their families to unwanted attention. See also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

And I note WWGB's removal of the names of the four named casualties, noting that even that requires local consensus, and reminding me that we have an essay on the topic: Wikipedia:Victim lists. An alternative view is here: Wikipedia:Casualty lists. General Ization ^Talk 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know the policy on name list for casualties of events! I'll check before adding information like that next time. Once we have a full list of casualties, would it be considered appropriate to list genders/ages and such? And is there any situation in which we'd want a list of names? Lektricfergus 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lektricfergus: It's something that can certainly be discussed here, especially once the final tally is known (and sadly, but realistically, it shouldn't be long now) so we are not adding the information one or two entries at a time. Some articles have a list of names (though I happen to be in the camp that opposes them, per the thinking expressed at Wikipedia:Victim lists). In any case, it would require discussion to establish consensus (probably in the form of an RfC, which typically takes a while, at least a week). Thanks for your patience (but there is no deadline). General Ization ^Talk 18:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lektricfergus: If this (compiling a list of data, at least, concerning fatalities) was something you were interested in and feel comfortable working on, there's no reason why you (or anyone else) couldn't develop it in your personal sandbox as information is released. That way, if consensus is found to include such a list it will already exist (though there's always the possibility it might not be used). General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the clarification. I'm happy to compile an ongoing list of names/ages of victims and sources for that information, should consensus be established. Lektricfergus talk 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: Good idea, thank you! And thank you for being patient with me, as well; I'm still learning the ropes. Lektricfergus talk 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article252362358.html General Ization ^Talk 03:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we find a drawing/schematic, showing the outline of the building?

The building layout is hard to visualise, and the article doesn't help. there are references to a pool deck and garage, but no indication how those relate in location terms to the collapsed part. The article says the building partly collapsed but there's no drawing showing clearly the collapsed vs uncollapsed sections.

If someone can figure where to get an overview drawing/schematic of the building, with key features shown, that would really be useful.

Hopefully easy as they should be on some kind of public file?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post has a good presentation of how the building may have collapsed, here. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall. My graphics skills are poor, but perhaps someone else can put together something from that. - Donald Albury 11:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a link to the building plans and other documents in the external link section. There's a series of videos at YouTube where a structural engineer analyses the collapse in part by using the building plans and the 2018 report. Example video— Diannaa (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Screen capture of Surfside condo collapse.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the image added by UserTwoSix. General Ization ^Talk 21:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post timeline

The Washington Post has posted an article analyzing in detail the collapse. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall. For the benefit of editors who cannot see the article, I will summarize some of the contents. The WaPo reports that a resident of a ground-floor apartment heard loud knocking noises shortly before 1 am. Around 1:14 am the resident heard a noise that "sounded like a wall crashing down". She went to the building lobby to speak to the security guard. About a minute later (I'm not clear if this is one minute after 1:14, or after reaching the lobby) there was a "very loud boom", and the resident saw that parts of the pool deck and street-level parking deck had collapsed. The resident then left the building with her two children, and her son called 911 at 1:19 am. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue dispatched a fire engine at 1:20 "in response to an alarm at the building" (not clear whether it was the 911 call or another alarm that triggered the dispatch). The WaPo says the middle and eastern sections of the building collapsed between 1:24 and 1:25 am, before the fire engine reached the building.

Here is an interview with the resident that is accessible. Details vary, but it is largely consistent with the WaPo report.

The WaPo article includes an analysis of the collapse from a number of structural engineers. I've added some of the above into the extended footnote at the top of the article. Any thoughts on if and how to incorporate more of the information? - Donald Albury 16:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a copy of the article at The Seattle Times. I can't check against the original so I don't know if it's complete or not.— Diannaa (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Seattle Times includes the text and some of the photos that are in the Washington Post, but a number of other photos and drawings in the Post article are not in the Times article. I can change the citation for what I added to point to the Times, but I expect that the report, like news reports in general, is going to become stale pretty quickly, useful in the long run mainly for documenting how the story developed. - Donald Albury 11:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Citizenship of victims

What value are we adding listing in explicit detail (including a table) the citizenship of every missing person and confirmed casualty? I doubt that anyone is surprised well off people from South America were residing in a Miami Beach condo - that's true from South Point all the way to Aventura. Can we clean that up please? Paraguay's first lady's sister is probably notable enough for a sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Floridans or Americans in general would know this; I did not know. I wouldn't say I was surprised, but I certainly did not know. I live in Canada. — Diannaa (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: As a procedural issue, almost never is an entire section or a significant element of an article removed here on Wikipedia just because one editor on a Talk page issues a vague statement such as "Can we clean that up please?" Assuming that (removal) is what you are suggesting, we have processes for proposing and establishing consensus for changes like this. See WP:RFC, and if you feel strongly about it, start one. General Ization ^Talk 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, we don't generally decide whether to include facts (or not) based on how "surprising" they are, but more often on the degree of coverage those facts receive in reliable sources. The nationalities of the missing and the dead in this incident have received extensive coverage, in many cases being part of the headline, and can be expected to do so as more are announced. General Ization ^Talk 17:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's unnecessary minutia and of limited encyclopedic value. I'm not going to fight that hard for it, I'll just make a note to come clean it up in December --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Citizenships of those confirmed dead is useful info. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: What might surprise you is the proportion of the currently 100,000 daily readers of this article (#30 of all pages viewed yesterday, #17 on 6/25) who are located somewhere outside the United States. We are often accused of being too quick to assume that our readers are American, or even speakers of English as a first language. Foreign nationals are naturally interested to know whether and/or how many of their citizens or even former citizens are involved in a tragedy receiving international coverage such as this. General Ization ^Talk 23:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of articles about disasters that list the nationalities of victims. Nationality is something that is often covered in reportage of such events, and it is likely something our readers are hoping to learn when they visit our website. My opinion is that it should stay in permanently (or until such time as it is removed by consensus).

The Casualties of the September 11 attacks#Foreign deaths is an example of doing it fine, Concordia is absurd. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence about how someone is the second cousin of a guy who was once a president is REALLY trivial and not appropriate. -- (I have no account) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.98.17.29 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nationality versus national origin

We need to be cognizant that just because someone is "From Cuba" that they are not necessarily of Cuban nationality or even dual Cuban & American nationality. For example, the reference on the deceased "Cubans" are not confirmed that they are Cuban nationals as they had lived in the U.S. for 50 years. I recommend removing the Cuban section, as that is not confirmed. Also, we need to make sure the numbers add up. Currently, the table shows 12 deaths, but the total says 16.ItsGrrreat (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is also true of Chilean general Bachelet's cousin (who is currently listed as a Chilean national) and his wife (who is described, and was earlier listed in the chart but is not now, as Filipino), who met in the 1970s and lived in Washington, DC for decades. The only reliable sources for information on the citizenship of foreign nationals are the consuls of those countries and/or statements they make to reliable media sources, not mini-bios of the victims which may reflect their country of birth (or even ancestry) rather than nationality. General Ization ^Talk 20:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed the heading of the table to read Casualties by nationality or national origin so it at least has some semblance of truth to it. General Ization ^Talk 21:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical context

With the rescue operation now in its eighth day, it appears highly unlikely that a significant proportion of the missing will be rescued. We will likely soon need to add a sentence to the lead recognizing this event as the most deadly structural collapse of a building in American history not directly caused by an act of terrorism. I am working on the phrasing of this addition and will propose it here for discussion. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I propose The collapse was the deadliest structural failure of a building in American history not caused by an act of terrorism, with a death toll surpassing the collapse of the Knickerbocker Theatre in Washington, D.C. in 1922. The Knickerbocker article will also need to be updated to reflect this context. General Ization ^Talk 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: Maybe it could say something along the lines of The collapse was the deadliest accidental structural failure in U.S. history. The death toll supersedes that of the collapse of the Knickerbocker Theatre in Washington, D.C. in 1922, and the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City, Missouri in 1981 as the deadliest building and structural collapses, respectively. Undescribed (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Undescribed: But it is not the deadliest structural failure in U.S. history (the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 is) and the single word "accidental" is far too vague and easy to miss. Besides, accidental structural failure is a rather odd, imprecise wording (as opposed to "intentional structural failure"?) and doesn't intuitively exclude the WTC collapse from the comparison. I'm not sure it's necessary to address its toll relative to the 1981 Hyatt walkway collapse, as that wasn't a building, per se (why I say of a building), and I'm always suspect of any sentence that the author feels needs to end with respectively. I really think the original wording is more accessible and quickly informative, and much shorter. (But discussion is why I posted it here — thanks. Hopefully we still have a little time to figure this out.) General Ization ^Talk 06:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: I concur that "accidental" isn't the best choice of wording. I do think that it would be more ideal having it say "structural failure/collapse" versus "building collapse", only because it would clarify that the death toll is higher than that of both Knickerbocker theatre and Hyatt Regency walkway. It should definitely be noted in the statement that terrorism related collapses like that seen with the World Trade Center and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building are excluded. Like you stated, there is still time to discuss. Undescribed (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)