Talk:2020 Beirut explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Someone with editing rights

Resolved

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

 Doneintelati^talk 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

I propose that the following image be added to the Damage section in order to provide an illustration of the extent of the damage.

--Lord Stephenson (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Talk 00:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

"United States President" isn't a title. Please de-capitalize "president". 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:49B0:16AB:29EE:85AA (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Has been done. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

1 Greek national dead, 2 wounded

https://www.news247.gr/kosmos/ekrixeis-sti-viryto-plirofories-gia-2-ellines-traymaties.7691872.html?utm_source=Sport24&utm_medium=BestofNetwork_home&utm_campaign=24MediaWidget&utm_term=Pos1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.164.201.215 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Y done. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sodium nitrate cause

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

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

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

Regardless of the statements of news sources, the character of the explosion would indicate Ammonium Nitrate (The characterization "High Explosives" is consistent with this), whereas the small flashes were probably stored detonators. Ammonium Nitrate detonating in the absence of "fuel oil" would produce large amounts of Nitrogen Oxides, hence the red color. Terrible idea to store such an enormous quantity so close to a city. — Preceding unsigned 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This news article talks about the source of the ammonium nitrate https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2014/4194/crew-kept-hostages-floating-bomb-mv-rhosus-beirut/ Deepmindai (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

More sources stating that it was ammonium nitrate, 2700 tonnes https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/huge-explosion-rocks-lebanon-capital-beirut-live-updates-200804163620414.html — Deepmindai (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential motives

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment

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

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

Flags in the Reactions section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USGS says 3.3 on the MM scale

M 3.3 Explosion - 1 km ENE of Beirut, Lebanon. Abductive (reasoning) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Image and video tags at top of Talk page needed?

Since the article now has both images and video clips (see also: commons:Category:2020 Beirut explosions), do we still need the tags at the top of this Talk page requesting both? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone has removed the tags so I will archive this section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

3.3 On the Richter Scale

I went to look at my quake feed and found it down to the minute, and see here at https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/lebanon-beirut-explosion-live-updates-dle-intl/h_da222628bccbcd0736247682b65a8675 that others looked into this, too. Equivalent of a 3.3 earthquake. Might be worth mentioning in the article somewhere in a half dozen words or so. =( Jeturcotte (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's already there: The United States Geological Survey reported the blast measured as a 3.3 local magnitude earthquake. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Beirut bombing

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

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

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

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

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

I have requested to remove this redirect, see the Redirects for discussion page. Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidence overwhelmingly points to an accident.Calmecac5 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Add request: Ammonium nitrate disasters

Hey,

Thanks to everyone taking their time and working on this Article. I wish the best of luck for everyone involved in this disaster, especially for the search and rescue teams.

I want to ask for Ammonium nitrate disasters being added to See Also; this is relevant as the explosion was caused by Ammonium nitrate. Source: Mohammed Fahmi, Lebanon's interior minister, said it was apparently caused by ammonium nitrate that was stored in a warehouse at the port. I can't add it myself as the Article is Semi-Protected and I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Awoolyx (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

More sources needed, see 1st section of the discussion. —Mykhal (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

another source stating ammonium nitrate, 2700 tonnes - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/huge-explosion-rocks-lebanon-capital-beirut-live-updates-200804163620414.html — Deepmindai (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

Add additional sources backing up the Director General of Lebanese Public Security's statement about the confiscated materials. The article also states that the material was ammonium nitrate:

In 2014, a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate was abandoned in Beirut. https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2014/4194/crew-kept-hostages-floating-bomb-mv-rhosus-beirut/ Deepmindai (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"General Security Chief Abbas Ibrahim said some 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate were in Beirut's port on the way to Africa when they exploded." - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/huge-explosion-rocks-lebanon-capital-beirut-live-updates-200804163620414.html —Deepmindai (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Doneintelati^talk 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"2020 Beirut bombing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2020 Beirut bombing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#2020 Beirut bombing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is important

Tel Aviv has its' city hall lighten up with the lebanese flag as a show of solidarity. Source: https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/8/5/tel-aviv-to-light-city-hall-with-lebanon-flag https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1291057171615154176 Perhaps add it under the Reactions section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IveGonePostal (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@IveGonePostal: This was added, thanks for the suggestion!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

112.200.101.248 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done - it is not clear what change(s) you would like to be made. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

RACHIT SURESH (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)https://twitter.com/i/status/1290696171816550400

•  Not done - it is not clear what change(s) you would like to be made. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ISIS involvement?

Reports say that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, but can't find a reliable source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, without reliable sources it won't be added. End of story.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It was reported by Sputnik Turkey, then they denied it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is 100% not an attack based on eye witness video. An attack on that level would have happend all at once without warning. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, we don't engage in original research, and instead depend on verifiable content from reliable sources. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Exact time of the second explosion

The United States Geological Survey states that the exact time of the second explosion was 15:08:18 UTC (18:08:18 EEST)

Lord Stephenson (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice source Lord Stephenson! I added your suggestion as an extra citation for the time, leaving the original 'about 18:08 EEST' without mention to seconds, citing you as the suggetion author. Feel free to rollback. Brunoff (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ammonium nitrate disasters

I've created Template:Ammonium nitrate disasters, if that means we should trim the See also section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested see also link

Jaʿār munitions factory explosion 142.116.53.37 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bhopal disaster

This is starting to strongly resemble the Bhopal disaster in India 1984. However, we should approach this delicately and carefully as many things about this incident are not yet known. Edits to the article should be carefully monitored at this point by admins.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the resemblance. That was a chemical leak. This looks to be an isolated case where chemicals were stored near each other causing a chain reaction explosion...intelati^talk 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I simply meant the large number of deaths caused by chemicals. I did not mean to imply they had the same cause. I do believe this should be closely monitored here on Wikipedia by admins. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, already speculation is going around that this was an attack rather than a accident and I'm already sick of it. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it may have been an attack. And, it may have been an accident. We don't know yet.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks more like the Tiajin explosions of 2015 than Bhopal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.121.131.94 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Israel blamed for explosions'

Should it be noted that there are officials in Lebanon that put the blame on an Israeli terrorist attack?--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:38FB:AF74:9E0C:A7A9 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to such statements? Ahmad^talk 04:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate article in "Related Articles" view

There are two duplicated articles "2020 Beirut explosion" in "Related Articles view" Discuss to delete the one. The Supermind (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Rhosus, 2013 detained cargo ship

Not sure this is considered a reliable source, but the confiscation of the ship in 2014 and the status of the crew made the shipping news back then. There are multiple sources saying the Rhosus, Moldovian registry with a Ukrainian crew, was forced to seek repairs in Beirut. The ship was seaworthy. The owner of the ship and cargo could not be found. The crew was allowed to go home, the cargo was moved to a warehouse. Google has a cached version of this article from July. https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2014/4194/crew-kept-hostages-floating-bomb-mv-rhosus-beirut/ - 76.168.10.186 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

fleetmon is reliable source of maritime information. Reports of 2700 tons of ammonium nitrate confiscated from a ship and stored in the port of Beirut in 2014 are indeed relevant. In addition, in August 2020 the fleetmon ships database listed that same Moldavian flagged RHOSUS (MMSI 214181621), an 86 meter long general cargo ship, as no longer on its live tracker map for more than a year. Its cargo was listed as "agricultural commodities". https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/rhosus_8630344_46589/ Yohananw (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but it is original research unless sources have made the connection between the seizure of the Rhosus's payload and the explosion. The current sources does not do that, as they predates the explosion by years. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Found a source. I guess an English-language source will exist and can be added soon. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any further information regarding the purpose of the shipment and who ordered it (I assume a company in Mocambique or perhaps its goverment)? --Shandris^{the azylean} 13:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

More pics

https://www.voanews.com/gallery/massive-explosion-rocks-beirut Victor Grigas (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Those from Reuters there are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the Reuters ones aren't free, it's the VOA ones. I just uploaded a video report from VOA and took out the AP footage in it:

news from VOA

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems it is difficult to find more free pic, VOA picture quality is bad compare with the news agency. Hope someone can take some drone photos for the after explosions --Wpcpey (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

At the beginning of the page "Estimates of equivalent effects for the explosion range from 100 to 3,000 tonnes (110 to 3,300 short tons) of TNT." should be changed to "Estimates of equivalent effects for the explosion using G. I. Taylor's method ranges from 100 to 3,000 tonnes (110 to 3,300 short tons) of TNT. While using the effective relativeness factor for ammonium nitrate which is 0.42, the energy released by the explosion is 2.75×0.42=1.155 kilotons of TNT." Fj3ks1d (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for those figures? Otherwise it's a N for WP:OR--intelati^talk 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MV Rhosus

More information on the vessel which brought the ammonium nitrate to Beirut in 2014 can be found:(here) note: the photos of the ship located on this site are not public domain, and cannot be used here.Juneau Mike (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a barnstar on offer at WT:Ships#MV Rhosus if anyone wants to write an article on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Got some info on the shady owner of the ship, Russian Igor Grechushkin who abandoned his crew on the vessel that could best be called a 'floating bomb', refusing to pay port fees and wages.

Little is known about the Russian owner of the Rhosus, the cargo ship impounded in Beirut in 2014, whose captain had referred to its freight of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate fertiliser as a "floating bomb".

That ammonium nitrate is believed to have fuelled the devastating explosion that has left more than 100 dead in Beirut.

Former crew members said the ship was owned by Igor Grechushkin (Игорь Гречушкин), a Russian national believed to be living in Cyprus, where he holds either citizenship or residency. Grechushkin, a native of the far-eastern city of Khabarovsk, is reported to have managed Teto Shipping, which owned the Rhosus.

The ship arrived in Beirut in 2013 while sailing from Georgia to Mozambique. It was prevented from leaving the Beirut port in 2014 over an unspecified dispute, either because the ship was deemed not seaworthy or because the owner had failed to pay the necessary fees to the port.

It was then that Grechushkin is said to have walked away from the ship, refusing to answer calls or negotiate with the port authorities for the release of his sailors.

In complaints to the press in 2014, former crew members said they had been "abandoned" in Beirut and had not been paid their wages for nearly a year. "The owner [of the ship] has virtually abandoned the ship and its crew," wrote the ship’s former captain. "Salaries are not paid, supplies are not purchased. The shipowner has refused the cargo."

A deleted LinkedIn profile lists Grechushkin as living in Cyprus and as working as a manager at Unimar Service Ltd. Calls to a company with a similar name and profile, Unimar Safety Services and Equipment, on Wednesday were not answered. Calls to a number for Grechushkin listed by the aggrieved crew members also went unanswered.

The letter, which was sent to Russian journalists by the Rhosus's former captain in 2014, also complained about being "held hostage" onboard the ship. The Beirut authorities "don't want an abandoned ship at port, especially with a cargo of explosives, which is what ammonium nitrate is. That is, this is a floating bomb, and the crew is a hostage aboard this bomb.""

The mostly Ukrainian crew were held onboard the ship for nearly a year before they were released. The ammonium nitrate was confiscated and held at the port in a warehouse.

The Russian television station Ren TV published a photograph on Wednesday of a man it said was Grechushkin in tight-fitting jeans and sunglasses sitting astride a motorcycle. The television station did not indicate the source of the photograph.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/aug/04/beirut-explosion-huge-blast-port-lebanon-capital?page=with:block-5f2aa25f8f089d9b758a73d6#block-5f2aa25f8f089d9b758a73d6

--Shandris^{the azylean} 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of the Ukrainian crew members, as well as the captain himself and his wife. https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/first-pictures-emerge-of-a-russian-businessman-whose-ammonium-nitrate-cargo-detonated-in-the-port-of-beirut/ --Shandris^{the azylean} 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A very interesting interview (in Russian) with one of the senior crew members who tells the whole story. What's a bit surprising is that he blames the Lebanese authorities for not disposing of the cargo and that the country should "suit itself" for what happened. https://www.sibreal.org/a/30767538.html --Shandris^{the azylean} 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map

Can the map in the infobox be replaced with one in English please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I think it's imported from Open Street Map which displays the map in the local language of the area. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've asked at the Help Desk. We should not be using a map which is incomprehensible to most of our readers. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In order to avoid edit wars

I added some information but someone decided to remove it, so this is the content: Israeli media reported videos of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah from 2016 and 2017, when he threatened to destroy ammonia tanks in the port of Haifa which would cause like a "nuclear" explosion.

You can added it back if it can fit somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z0123456789 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not in the least relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant; makes about as much sense as connecting this statement by Katz from around the same time into some bizarre theory about Israel bombing Beirut.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Satellite images

What about satellite images by planetlabs? Category:Images_by_Planet_Labs https://mobile.twitter.com/planetlabs/status/1291010972983992320 Kroger4 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

N Unfortunately, Planet Lab licenses their image using the noncommercial usage restriction, so they are incompatible with wikimedia commons.--intelati^talk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've asked if they will relicense them. Worth a shot Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Video could be migrated

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLbaxjg_C_0

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera's comment

in what Al Jazeera English described as an "unusual move"

Seems like an unnecessary note. Shall we remove it? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it should be kept (though perhaps rephrased?), as we need to explain why the Israeli response is noteworthy. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who added the note, support keeping for much the same reasons as TompaDompa; that this is unusual and noteworthy given the state of I-L relations for the past few decades should be noted explicitly in the article. Perhaps a rephrasing could be made to remove the attribution, e.g. "an unusual proposal given that..." or "unusually given that..."--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove it. The word "Notably" is sufficient; we go on to provide an explanation - "given that Israel and Lebanon have no diplomatic ties and are technically at war" - and do not need to spoon-feed our readers further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Film footage

This piece from The Daily Telegraph has footage of the explosion, which seems to involve a brief mushroom cloud: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless the footage is freely licensed as Creative Commons or public domain, we cannot use it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. So what about that link to The New York Times article that's Reference 3? It's used six times and has an embedded video clip? I don't see any Creative Commons or public domain licence there. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

.... and I suspect there might be thousands of similar examples across the entire encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We can link relevant quality content, even if non-free, but not embed it unless free.--Nø (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Should this video be in the article?

Beirut Explosion Moment of blast captured in a BBC interview - BBC URDU

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Subtitles? That's pretty dramatic. Is there a link to the BBC giving anymore info on the clip? Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the latest URL. (Arabic, not Urdu, given the context.) This is the most human reaction video I've seen to date, and definitely should be an external link. It's accurate down to the shattered glass on the floor.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-53662490/beirut-explosion-moment-blast-hit-bbc-bureau

kencf0618 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should show things just because we can. Let's keep it sober. There are also videos of mutilated bodies up and down the streets, but we don't need to show it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as it does not show the blast itself. Zezen (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: the video is under a DR discussion at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Very Loud Explosion

All Lebanese people heard the Explosion except Hassan Nasrallah, who hidden and living Underground. People in Nicosia heard the Explosion 150 km away. 2001:56A:F0E1:6000:44AB:CA36:8889:936C (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what change(s) you might be suggesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Name change

Although there may have been two explosions, if you look at the video footage, I agree that it makes sense to rename the default to "beirut explosion". People are more likely to associate a single event there. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:CA:574E:D609:7111 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

this is being discussed above. it may be better to contribute to that discussion than begin a new section about it. if you wish to delete this section, i give you my permission to also delete this comment of mine. dying (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this a Terrorist attack ?

I found in the article infobox that explosion in Port of Beirut explosion was triggered by a terrorist attack. it is unsourced and vandalism, does it mean it needs to reverted? I thing many IPs added "terrorist attack" to cause infobox, thanks. 182.1.31.168 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

it looks like the vandalism has been addressed and the page has been protected since then. thanks for bringing it up! dying (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Replace Moshe Faiglin's response with more relevant Netanyahu's and Reuven Rivlin's under the Reactions

I think we should remove Moshe Faiglin's response, as i think it is undue weight due to the fact he is a *former* member of parliament, and is largely associated with the party Zehut, which currently has exactly 0 seats in the Knesset and is largely fringe. We should replace it with more relevant Netanyahu's and Reuven Rivlin's response. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/we-share-your-pain-israel-offers-aid-to-lebanon-after-beirut-port-blast-1.9046764 https://twitter.com/ruvirivlin/status/1290734371339739136 IveGonePostal (talk)

I removed Faiglin. Faiglin isn't even a backbencher anymore he is out of parliament all together. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop deleting information in Casualties section

Who or whome delete many information in the Casualties section.Editors behalf of any country,organization or party could add information.But they should not delete information of others. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The number of casualties from different countries is given in the footnote in the first paragraph of this section. This information has not been deleted, only moved. TompaDompa (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Background and Cause have duplicate info

Background and Cause sections basically have the same info.

On 23 September 2013, Moldovan-flagged cargo ship MV Rhosus set sail from Batumi, Georgia, to Beira, Mozambique, carrying 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. During the trip, it was forced to port in Beirut with engine problems. When it was found unseaworthy, the owners and charterers abandoned it, its crew were repatriated, and its cargo brought ashore for storage. The ammonium nitrate was then stored at the warehouses without safety measures for the next six years.

This is from the Background section, while this is from the Cause section:

There were warehouses in the port that stored explosives and chemicals including nitrates, common components of fertilizers and explosives. The Director General of Public Security stated the explosion was caused by ammonium nitrate that was confiscated from Rhosus and stored for years until the explosion. A security source has stated that the explosion was caused during welding work on a hole in a warehouse.

I propose merging these sections, or removing the part from the Background section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the Causes section, since it might be the cause, but it might not. It's far more relevant, in my opinion, in the Background section. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Either way, Cause should be before Effect (Explosions). TGCP (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the article name be changed to be precise?

Given the political and infrastructure climate in Lebanon, would it be better to title the article "2020 Beirut Port Explosion" (or "Explosions"). That allows for the possibility of (let us hope not) other accidental or terroristic explosions at a later date. Jmncnj07 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk) Port Beirut Disaster would not be without convention, there's been some talk with the Tianjin page as well —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If another explosion were to happen in Beirut I would support 100%, but as of now its not needed.★Trekker (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional Source

The following newsletter in PDF format includes on page 3 a brief essay written and published in October, 2015 by the lawyers who represented the crew of the M/V Rhosus and eventually secured their freedom. As such it is a primary source about the ship and the situation. I'm just too tired to incorporate it into this article. HTH --Eliyahu S ^Talk 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

i believe much of what is substantial is already included in the article, and the source is cited as reference 16 as of this edit. is there anything else that you feel should be included? dying (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk) TheBrodsterBoy from reddit, I was the one who found that article in the first place, credit where credit is due —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Beirut Explosion 2020-08-04.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Add 2011 Cyprus blast to "see also"

I think the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion should be added to the "See Also" section, as this was a similar scenario, where long neglected explosives led to a major disaster. -2003:CA:8736:F0D3:D47A:4F33:3542:72FC (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - by *Treker (talk · contribs) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Physics of the grain elevator blocking the shock wave

I find it notable that the giant grain elevator located directly next to the blast zone, AKA Ground Zero seemed to absorb a lot of the destructive forces from the blasts, partially protecting buildings on the side of the elevator opposite the blast. I wonder if there are reliable sources that can either confirm or deny this. So far I have not been able to find such reliable sources, but perhaps other editors can. I am not suggesting any kind of original research, only through reliable sources. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

With a supersonic pressure blast wave like this, buildings on the other side of the grain elevator were not necessarily protected. Depending on geometry you can actually have constructive interference which focuses more blast effects on the lee side of an object. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain further? If the grain elevator had not blocked some of the energy, it would have been obliterated. In other words, why did the shock wave of the blast not obliterate the grain elevator? While it was structurally destroyed, it was not eliminated as a structure and remained standing. Simple physics suggest that it absorbed some of the energy of the blast. Other structures in the vicinity would have had a reciprocal effect/benefit. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think he means this: Wave interference. With the building blocking the shockwave, it would be split into two sources on either side of the building, allowing for interference where both shockwaves combine. Dunno how strong of an effect this could have, nor if it would end up stronger, weaker, or roughly equal to an unobstructed blast. It all depends on multiple factors. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, it obviously absorbed some of the blast energy, but that doesn't necessarily mean it protected structures immediately on the other side of it. Our intuitions about blasts aren't necessarily a good guide on this due to wave interference factors. There are too many variables to know for sure. And of course we have no sources discussing it, anyway. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. I was looking for some more research and verifiable sources on the matter one way or another, that's all.Juneau Mike (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

#BeirutBlast, Beirut Blast, redirect?

On Twitter and Facebook, the hashtag #BeirutBlast has been used to describe these explosions. I think there should be redirect pages with those titles that send users here. Would that be appropriate, and if so, how would one go about creating redirect pages? RobotGoggles (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

it looks like you've already discovered how to create the redirect page for Beirut Blast and discovered that hashes cannot be used in article titles due to technical limitations, but i thought i might note this so that other editors don't also look into the matter for you. dying (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

TNT Equivalency for Explosive Grade Ammonium Nitrate

The TNT Equivalency of Security Sensitive Ammonium Nitrate (SSAN) is 0.32 i.e.explosive grade Ammonium Nitrate (AN). This factor is from Török & Ozunu (2015) and it is the factor used by the Australian Explosives Inspectorate. That said, the TNT Equivalency of AN is an estimate and it varies depending on the type of AN and conditions that led to a detonation e.g. in Explosive or Fertiliser grade, in bags, in bays, free stockpile, set of by fire or falling debris.

With regards to disaster in Beirut, the AN was in bags labelled Nitroprill, a knock off version of Orca's Nitropril™ (an explosive grade AN or SSAN). If the Nitroprill in Beirut was inferior Fertiliser Grade then it's TNT Equivalency would have been a lot lower, 0.15 to 0.03 according to Török & Ozunu (2015). However, that does not appear to be the case. The factor of 0.32 is likely the most appropriate factor to use at this time.

This may be constrained by looking at the the blast radius. Török & Ozunu (2015) include two charts showing blast overpressure and distance for 10, 100 and 1000 tonnes of explosive grade and fertiliser grade AN.

Török, Z., & Ozunu, A. (2015). Hazardous Properties of Ammonium Nitrate and Modeling of Explosions Using TNT Equivalency. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), 14(11), 2671–2678.

--Diamonddavej (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there already a section about this topic above?? -- Veggies (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Reactions section

The Reaction section is removed. Any reasoning for this or should I add it back? ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 19:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Styyx, add it. Idan (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Abductive was the one who removed it, so I'll let them explain why it was removed, but what I said above stands – these sections tend to dominate the article while being of little to no use to anybody. I say good riddance. TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add it back; it is important to know what others have (or haven't) said about the issue. Also, it shouldn't have been unilaterally removed without consensus. TheKaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I restored it per Idan's comments since there was no proper edit summary to blank the section, but since I see that TompaDompa is now opposing that, it can be reverted if needed. (Though two discussion on the talk page about the same subject will be a problem.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So now we have the same thing said at Domestic Reaction and aftermath. We need to remove one to not have the same info duplicate. already removed ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Those reactions sections are unencyclopedic quotefarms and roundly hated by many editors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I restored it because the edit summary wasn't specific on the reasoning. Since that is your reasoning, I will state that I am fine with it being removed if that is the consensus. Though, I am not sure that the name "Aftermath" is descriptive enough for the content you left on the article given that it was just local reactions. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Super Goku V I don't think that the extra note is needed because it's expected every country will give condolences (by note I mean the countries note). TheKaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure what note you were talking about unless you meant either the edit summary or the "Aftermath" thing I mentioned. If it is edit summary, it just made it very unclear what the reasoning was behind it, so I just restored it since I felt there needed to be a discussion first. (Though, that got thrown out the window in the last 15 minutes since mostly everything got removed without some kind of consensus.) If you meant what I said about "Aftermath", I was just saying that the section name change didn't really fit with the contents. If it is neither, than I apologize for being thick-headed. (^_^') --Super Goku V (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is the one which says "Representatives of multiple countries offered support" and it has an appendix after multiple countries saying the countries. I think you had added that, but if not, I apologize. I just want that deleted since it makes absolutely no sense if we agree that there should be no reaction about specific countries. TheKaloo (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheKaloo: I'm the one who added that because there seemed to at least be consensus in the section #Flags in the Reactions section above that the footnote would be preferable to a bullet list with flags (pending consensus on whether to remove the reactions altogether). I am in no way opposed to removing it outright. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in a day it will probably be redundant, but until we get better overall sourcing, it will probably be ok. I'm ok with leaving the reactions setting, but I find that specific add-on useless. I'll add a new topic and see if we can get consensus on it. TheKaloo (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I saw that, but I didn't connect the dots until your comment despite me seeing the edit you made removing it. TompaDompa has already pointed out that they made the edit, but I will say that this is a fast moving article so no apology needed, but thank you for making one. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that the edit changed one section's header and didn't outright delete it. Only noticed it because the article history clearly showed my edited added more that what was removed, which is a bad thing to see. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

But almost all disaster articles have a Reaction section and still some people search to see the reaction of specific countries, no matter how many editors "hate it". ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

All I want is a consensus, though I kinda think you intended to reply to someone else on the chain who has already replied to you. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I don't think its right to remove it while a consensus has yet yo be reached. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, it's still there. I just changed the format to the one I suggested in the section #Flags in the Reactions section, as that seemed to be an uncontroversial suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the basics: the list format and especially the flags are a disgrace to a Wikipedia article. All major disasters garner condolences from foreign countries; these are uninteresting and listing them is WP:OR, WP:QUOTEFARM and gives WP:UNDUE weight to such reactions. Right now the article is missing the usual earthquake comparison (Moment magnitude scale), which a 3.3 according to the USGS. I'm sure there is a lot more other information out there now. Make the article better, please. Abductive (reasoning) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is Donald Trump's views given prominence > He has no standing in this issue, a person known to make up facts, why is it even an Americans point of view important here ? Kanatonian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The response from the President is generally noted in incidents that make international news. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the second reply, but I am not caught up on everything. This section is discussing the response. Feel free to provide your input there as it seems to have made more progress. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear Explosion, Disproved

A lot of people are speculating that the explosion was nuclear, but it has been cast into a lot of doubt.

Should the "Causes" section include a paragraph that says, in essence, "online, recently after the explosion, theories arose that suggested that the blast was caused by a nuclear explosion. However, explosives experts doubt this to be the cause.

This Washington Post article both states

1. That a nuclear explosion has been discussed and 2. That an expert on the subject casts doubts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/04/beirut-explosion-ammonium-nitrate/

Would this be an appropriate addition? RobotGoggles (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is just initial speculation. The blast itself (at around 1 kilotons of TNT) was about 5%-10% of Hiroshima and about the same as W54 (used in suitcase bombs). Vici Vidi (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What rot. A nuclear explosion would have been immediately apparent, and it would have set off alarm bells in both Western and Russian/Chinese national security organizations. Saints preserve us ... HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.15.47 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedian me says (obviously) do not mention nuke speculation unless it is covered in a number of reliable sources. The off-wiki me can do WP:OR, and says that the Beirut explosion did not exhibit the blinding flash nor the marginally detectable increase in radiation that a nuclear device would have caused. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Should only the eponymous cat be on this article, or should the cats on that cat be on here as well? Jim Michael (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The former, no need for such duplication. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing a video clip

For such a well documented event it seems a glaring omission for no video footage to be included in the article. I understand that the salient issue here is footage usage rights - does anyone know if any of the recordings of the blast itself have been released into the public domain?

Failing this, as this is a notable, newsworthy event, is there any reason why the single inclusion of one of the various news media clips of the explosion would not meet both Fair Use and Wikipedia's policy on non-free content, assuming of course that there is genuinely no public domain footage of the event available?

This said, looking at the entry regarding the commons clip above, maybe (if that clip was included previously) this is a matter that is being resolved through that process, but nonetheless... BlackholeWA (talk) 05:53, 7 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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

#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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[2] Any idea who might have a recording of that? EllenCT (talk) 17:11, 9 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)

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)

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)

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

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. [4] 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: [5]. I added it to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 9 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)

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)[6]. These „Prills“[7] 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."[8] 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)

Grammar error (effected/affected)

"The damage from the blast effected over half of Beirut" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.195.232.131 (talk) 07:28, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

Well, this lacks a request template, but I did find the location of the error you pointed out and corrected it. Thank you for pointing it out.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Help, please...

At 7:15 10 August, someone made a edit that rmved the "bomb of some kind" section, here on the talkpage. This did not look like a good edit, so I tried to undo it, which caused the "Blast power" section to disappear. I undid my undo....I am lost...Asking for help from wiser heads. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Blast power" section had been archived in the edit immediately prior to the unconstructive edit,[9] which restored that section, deleting the "bomb of some kind" section in the process. That is why reversion of the unconstructive edit caused it to disappear. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the explanation, very kind! I thought I had "broken the Wiki". Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

300,000 homeless

Looking at the satellite map of damaged buildings, it seems only buildings in neighboring areas suffered damage, but the reports say 300,000 people are homeless, which is nearly the entire population of the city. Is the map understating damage? What are the reasons for being displaced? Loss of utilities and emergency services? Blown-out windows? Waiting for structural inspection? Actual structural damage? Lots of people living in high-rises very near the blast? The number killed is rather low compared to the number displaced, which makes it sound like lower-level but widespread damage. Any more details explaining this very high number would be appreciated. -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Beland I agree with your observations. The infobox for Beirut has sourced info stating Capital population @2012 was 361,366. Metro area was 2,200,000 @2014. (I think I am reading this correctly.) Even with population gain over the years, 300,000 seems (hopefully) high. Perhaps at some point, a blast radius will be reported. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mehr News Agency images

Photos by Mehr are released on a Commons-compatible licence, are they not? If this is the case, then the linked external image in the Shipping section can be uploaded to Commons and used in this article and the list of shipwrecks in 2020. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Service for updates: additional List of damaged vessels see insurancemarinenews.com. Additional AIS-List from https gcaptain.com/ais-data-shows-ships-in-port-at-time-of-beirut-explosion/ (note "Abou Karim I has now also capsized") For Mero Star: crack in the hull of his ship, the Mero Star. "The ship sinks. With the explosion there were serious injuries on board." Hope this is useful for you. --80.187.104.112 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@80.187.104.112: - thanks for that. Sorry for the delay in replying but I was affected by a loss of internet. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Beirut Port Rehabilitation and Extension

Hello this is about the port facilities damaged by the explosion. The 2013 report about the port facilies (online-PDF) shows the situation when the explosives arrived in 2013. The new container-terminals were finihed around 2013.[10] Security aka “Surete Generale” was assigned to Habourpolice together with libanese Army. One Warehouse for hazardous goods with " 5,231 m² " was existing. Planning for new facilitys were known before the explosion: a) for the area with the "silo-quais" see Project Description. b) for a new modern cruise port close connected with the city (see Project Description). Who is responsible for the habour operations and the the planning? "The port is operated and managed by the Port Authority of Beirut (GEPB). Container terminal operations are subcontracted to a private consortium called the Beirut Container Terminal Consortium (BCTC)." (businessnews.com). In the article in f.e. in section aftermath there should be information about the rebuilding and modernisation of the port. --80.187.104.112 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

this is interesting information, but i am not sure if it would best fit in this article, as the material seems to be more focused on the port itself rather than the explosions that took place there. however, the Port of Beirut article currently does not appear to adequately cover the expansion that you describe, so i think editing that article to cover this would be appropriate.

also, the fact that the first source that you provided states that there was one warehouse for "Hazardous Goods" is interesting as it corroborates another source stating that there was one such warehouse, but i hesitate to include it in the article because the source you provided refers to the state of the port as of 2013, and a map of the port, taken from what i assume is the official site for the port, shows more than 12 warehouses (labelled "ENTREPOT") and apparently has one numbered as high as 21, and i cannot reconcile the discrepancy between the two sources. in addition, the map appears to be from 2006, so i'm not even sure if either source can be considered up-to-date. dying (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well i agree to your feeling that losts (most) of articles interconnected with the actual case need more information and updates. More and more informations are "popping up" now on the backgrond of the "rising blame game" concerning corruption and those Ali Baba’s Caves. It's not up to us or wikipedia to be part of this games nor to create new theorys. But we can try to offer the best knowledge and proven informations. To check the facts i've read lots of sources - some of this can help to complete the puzzle for this article. Doing the completion understanding rises with partial infos we put together. NYT gave us this video of last Rhosus-Movings in Beirut. This article[11] provides us with a picture of unloading Rhosus in the port of Beirut. Hmm ... back to the "Beirut Port Rehabilitation and Extension" ... to write more about this we can and should begin on the historic background. Best --80.187.98.82 (talk) 07:53, 11 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[12] 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)

Dear Ellen! You are constantly misusing this talk page. Quote from top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." 2nd. it's anoying that you do not follow the given arguments and sources of others. You just use this place to demonstrate your POV. Pls. check WP:Conflict of interest for yourself. SCNR to note this. --80.187.99.96 (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The only section that has any issues is this one as it is a bit unclear. I don't believe I see any WP:COI issues, especially since WP:COIEDIT. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT (talk · contribs) Can you explain the point with regards to the article? Is it about adding the text in the cquote template to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That user cannot reply right now. They have been blocked for a week. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

:/ Ah. Well, nothing to do about it, but wait out the week I guess. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

It should be mentioned that the ammonitrate bags were intended for explosive manufacturing so had a higher nitrogen content and finer granulometry than for agriculture use It is an exeptional deep crater which has never occured before for a conventional surface detonation.Ratio diameter to depth 3 standard is 5 to 7. In the range of 1KT TNT Oppau crater depth 19m Ryonchong 15m . Even detonation trials Minor scale and Mysty picture 3KT hemispherical depth 20m . Therefore one can assume unconsolidated ground and high explosive density per square meter storage. The crater volume is representative of the seismic magnitude. The true local magnitude should be in the range of 3,7 and 3,9. AZF 0,1KT very well documented was 3,3. 176.149.93.6 (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the exact text you wish to change, and give suitable citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)