Talk:2020 Beirut explosion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Relief section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is becoming a reoccurring issue. Is there any way to reach a compromise on how much relief is discussed on the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course – discuss it here. Did you have a specific suggestion in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it is a recurring discussion and there are more editor that want to add it based on edits, perhaps it would be better to use Template:Main Article in the Relief section and split off all or most information regarding countries that gave aid. I know I already suggested it before, but the current situation does seem to be working. The number of notes is down, which is good, but there are still notes that exist just to prevent the information from being in the body of the article. Not to mention that the relief citation should be given a Template:overcite as it is way too much for one citation, but cannot because that citation exists to also prevent certain information from being in the body of the article. I think at this point, a "relief only" article is needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If a reader wishes to find this info, scrolling/searching through the refs may not occur to them. A separate article may be a good service. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating a separate article is a bad idea. This is not content fit for an encyclopedia, such a list would simply become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that would mainly function as a scoreboard for the different countries. Nobody is going to go looking for this information in WP:10YEARS. The only reason anybody might do so now is that this content is news, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We should seek to summarize the various countries' relief, not enumerate or exemplify. Because of that, reducing the number of cited sources to only the ones needed to verify that a number of countries sent in food, medical supplies, field hospitals, medical workers, and rescue teams is a perfectly valid, and even preferable, option. TompaDompa (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, point well made, and well-taken! Thanks for the detailed explanation. I unreservedly withdraw my "suggestion". Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP:10YEARS, I completely disagree that "nobody is going to go looking for this information when there is proof otherwise. 4,500+ page views with an daily average of 225 views for just a selection. Additionally, it is very difficult to predict when people will want to view an article and their reasons. Not to mention that a category exists for articles like the one proposed. Can I at least ask for a compromise given how many times this cycles around? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While I'll admit that that was a higher number of page views than I would have expected, it's still not all that much. More to the point however, (at least some of) those pages demonstrate the content problems I mentioned before (This is not content fit for an encyclopedia, such a list would simply become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that would mainly function as a scoreboard for the different countries.) pretty clearly. Those are not pages to emulate, because those pages are not good.
What kind of compromise did you have in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The compromise was for a separate (and only-separate) article with restrictions such as no flags per earlier discussions that would deal with such information. That way, we reduce the issues on this article while also allowing other users to be happy. If there is an AfD immediately, then that is fine with me, but the current situation does not feel sustainable. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, such articles have gone to AfD and DRV in the past. Consensus from back then was to keep such articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea for the same reasons as I outlined earlier. The push to add this type of content to the article seems to have pretty much stopped already, further underscoring that this is the kind of thing which is reported in the news and then quickly forgotten about. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It does look like the edits to the article trying to expand the relief section have ended, so if there is no support then there is no need for a separate article at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding a picture to the article

Hi I've uploaded a new picture to Wikimedia, here's the link c:File:Port_of_Beirut_15-8-2020.jpg

HJP11 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It's similar to the picture currently in the infobox, but it would be useful if someone can identify the ships visible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It is very detailed compared to the other picture, though. If there is a way to have it be linked in the article, then I would support it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

abou karim i and abou karim iii are in the center, with the latter largely obscuring the former, which is mostly submerged and lying on its side. amadeo ii is on the shore and can be seen in front of the crater from this angle, just to the right of the silos. raouf h can be seen to the left of abou karim i, immediately behind the quay, and mero star can be seen to the right of raouf h, though parts of it is hiding behind abou karim iii. both of the last two ships were identified by Davidships on the talk page for rhosus, where a better shot of those ships is linked.

the large ship to the right is french amphibious assault ship tonnerre, whose hull number is clearly visible, and which arrived in the port on 2020.08.13 to provide food, construction materials, medical supplies, and personnel, as detailed in the ship's article. a french flag can also be seen flying from the ship. to the left of tonnerre is jouri. i am not positive, but it looks like jouri moved from its previous position, as captured in this satellite image, to make way for tonnerre. i cannot tell for sure, but it also looks like orient queen, which is lying on its side, can be seen behind the structures to the left of jouri.

rhosus cannot be seen in this photo, as it sank over two years before, though it can be seen via google maps' satellite view at 33.9059°N 35.5186°E / 33.9059; 35.5186. in that view, the faint white line north of the east end of rhosus appears to be a mooring line that was still attached to the ship. dying (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

source for death toll

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

I don't understand this number of 220 death. In the article, this number is associate to 4 sources but none give this number, but 157/158 death. The article arabic, french, spanish, they all say 158. In some other langage, we can find 200+ or 220 but i suspect direct translate from the english version because few sources.--Taigong Yan (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

the source is from a tweet, apparently by a local radio station, that is listed as the first source in the lead. although it is quite possible that what they are reporting is correct, i personally think that it is better to be more conservative with the estimate that we list here. in addition, al jazeera reported about two hours ago that the number of deaths had risen to "More than 200 people", which questions the credibility of the claim of 220 deaths, especially since that estimate was first tweeted over a day ago.

i am going to roll back the numbers to what existed before the tweet, but set the death toll to "at least 200", to be consistent with al jazeera's most recent report. please feel free to revert or alter my edit to something else more appropriate if you find my edit troublesome.

thanks for the input, Taigong Yan! also, i did not have the insight to look at the other wikipedias to see if they had any sources for the claim of 220 deaths, so i am glad that you had thought to do that. dying (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The user Vanni58 changed the death count without taking this discussion into account.

I can't make the changes, the page seems to be protecting. Can someone take care of it?--Taigong Yan (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

i hesitate to undo Vanni58's changes because, about an hour after Vanni58 made the change, the bbc reported that the governor had been quoted as saying that the death toll had risen to 220. however, it appears that the bbc may have been skeptical of the statistic as well, as it explicitly attributes that report to the "al-Marsad Online news website", while it only uses the phrase "more than 200 people" without explicit attribution. since then, it appears that other anglophone sources may have begun reporting the 220 statistic as well, sometimes attributing the bbc. i am presuming that this is the "al-Marsad Online news website", but cannot seem to find the quote therein. however, i have virtually no knowledge of (any variety of) arabic, so i am assuming that my inability to find the quote is not because the quote isn't there.

in any case, i would not be against another editor restoring the more conservative statistic, but i am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to do so myself, in case you and i were the only editors who felt that way.

@Vanni58: i thought i might ping you in case you were unaware that this discussion was taking place. dying (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A tweet from an official source seems reliable. BBC News were also reporting the figure as 220, on air, yesterday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been on the Red Cross receiving the two Egyptian bodies at Cairo airport last night and we're told by the official Lebanese Red Cross & Lebanese Ministry of Health that the number is currently at 171, with at least 160 in ICU and ORs, as well as an estimated 30-40 missing (presumed death, of course, perhaps it's where the BBC gets the 220 from), I'd believe the ministry of Health in Lebanon is the official source that should be quoted. (Source, all over any Arabic news agency website, they're all quoting the 171, I don't think I can cite non English sources can I? Sorry new here!)--Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.EbrahimSaadawi: Citing non-English sources is perfectly allowed, see WP:NONENG. I would suggest providing a quote from the source with an accompanying translation, however. That helps prevent disputes about whether the source actually verifies the material it is supposed to. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thanks, alright this is the most reputable agency out of the tens reporting the same, as well as reported to me personally by the LRC.

"Lebanese Ministry of Health representative reported to France Press that Beirut explosion resulted in 171 confirmed deaths, and more than 6000 injured" is the direct translation. I can't find any source related to 220 from any agency close to Beirut, perhaps they're counting the reported "30-40 missing".--Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

although i do not question that the bbc is a reliable source, i am admittedly still skeptical about the 220 statistic it reports. it appears that many anglophone sources have begun repeating this statistic, possibly due to the bbc's reporting, though many sources outside of the anglophone world agree with Dr.EbrahimSaadawi, and have been reporting 171 deaths, as seen in france's ouest-france, germany's deutsche welle, and russia's tass.

regardless, as this issue apparently falls in a murky area regarding truth versus verifiability that i do not have significant experience with, i would welcome additional input on the matter. dying (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I also don't have any experience in editing wikipedia I just started, but, I can tell you I know for a fact the line "at least 220 death" is a false statement that can't be right. Editors, please, at least remove the word "at least" that precedes the 220 number. The opening line of "At least 220 dead" is a blatantly false statement that doesn't belong to an encyclopedia. The "+" symbol after 220 in the top right banner should also be removed. I am on the medical personnel who worked inside Beirut on the 4th, 5th, and 6th and currently in personal contact with the Lebanese Red Cross and the Ministry of Health in Lebanon, we've never heard or seen that BBC quoted number, it's just quoted out of thin air. The Official ministry number is 171 to this moment. I can put you in phone/email contact with the Ministry of Health representative if it would help.

Thus: I propose the line "The second explosion was extremely powerful, and caused at least 220 deaths, 7,000 injuries," be replaced with something in the lines of "caused deaths ranging from 171 quoted by the Lebanese Ministry of Health (with citation" to 220 quoted by the BBC and other foreign news agencies", and injuries ranging from 6000 (quoted by the Lebanese MOH) with citation to 7000 quoted by the BBC (with citation). It could also be replaced with one line like "approximately 200 fatalities" which would be an accurate and representative statement of the situation. Thank you. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Remove "220+" and replace with an actual sourced number. I have been going over the al-Marsad articles on this subject (which is the vicarious source in the BBC link in the Casualties section) and there is no mention of 220 deaths anywhere, and in fact I cannot even find the supposed interview with Abboud that this comes from. The highest and most recent updates on casualties in RSs that I could find is "at least 170". Even more confusing because this interview was supposed to have taken place 5 days ago, when most sources were discussing 70-100 deaths. This is very specious and should be replaced with something more readily sourced.130.233.2.40 (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The prose has been changed to "at least 200 deaths", but this is sourced to a line from UNHRC stating, "the UN Refugee Agency, is saddened to report that the list of more than 200 fatalities and missing". They are clearly not referring of deaths only in this sentence. Official figures are still 170 or 171.130.233.2.40 (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I edited it and added a comment. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks, TompaDompa. dying (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems at the moment there are atleast 177 confirmed deaths Azaan Habib 22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrCoolDude96: i noticed that you recently updated the death toll to 185, but after a cursory search, i could not find a source for this new statistic. could you provide the source that you used for this update? dying (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Non breaking spaces

I have asked user:Lugnuts on his talk page to desist from repeatedly removing non-breaking spaces _ which I and other editors have painstaking and deliberately added - from dates (and similar values). For reasons that are not clear, he has instead persisted in doing so. This needs to stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Mabbett to explain what these are, not once, but twice here, but hasn't done so. All I have is some guff about "prevent unwanted widows and orphans". What does that mean? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You may have asked, but instead of waiting for a reply you continued to edit war to remove them. I gave you an explanation (hardly "guff") with an example, in my original post. splitting the date numeral and month name between two lines (as demonstrated in my example) is not wanted; using non-breaking spaces prevents this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect, Mabbett. You have been edit-warring, even rolling back several of my edits, despite me restoring the non-breaking space stuff in the interim. It still doesn't explain WHY it has been added - "splitting the date numeral and month name between two lines is not wanted" Why isn't it? By whom? Can you link me to the policy/guide that gives the info. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Both @Lugnuts: and @Pigsonthewing: See MOS:NBSP. --intelati^talk 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, see Template:Cite_web#Date. intelati^talk 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess the key part is the opening wording of "It is sometimes desirable..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aerial imagery

I added a satellite image more detailed than Sentinel yesterday, but today found out that there's much more detailed drone imagery available at OpenAerialMap: https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1291353876004659206 Would anyone bother to make an illustration from it? Ain92 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hezbollah's arms stash

There are more reports that the ammonium nitrate was part of arms stockpile and that there were other shipments and stores of ammonium nitrate for and by the Hezbollah. The MV Rhosus visited Sidon a few months prior to its last port of Beirut. Hezbollah reportedly called the Beirut port Fatimah Gate, which also refers to Israel's former Good Fence Crossing. A previous talk section on this was archived at [[1]].-Yohananw (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another reliable source counters the current wiki account. On 21 August 2020, Der Spiegel and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that the actual owner of the Rhosus was the Cypriot Charalambos Manoli who was in debt to a Hezbollah linked bank in Tanzania. Also they report estimates of the amount of ammonium nitrate in the explosion between 700 to 1000 tons and not 2,750 tons of the 2013 shipment.-Yohananw (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study

On August 17th, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who usually study the effects of nuclear explosions, have released a study about the Beirut incident.[2] Among their findings are an approximate explosive yield of 2.3 kilotons, with a possible range of 1.7 to 3.4 kilotons. The results of that study should be incorporated into the article. Renerpho (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• The study is problematic because the author confused crater radius with diameter, and also seconds with minutes in mushroom cloud analysis. I'ld rather wait for this mistakes to be fixed prior to incorporating. Ain92 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Beirut thunderclap" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beirut thunderclap. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Beirut thunderclap until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Number of photos of solidarity with Lebanon

I see no reason to limit the number of photos to only one. There does not seem to be a consensus in the archives. Just a single editor making an opinion that "One is plenty". Banana Republic (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The point of having images is that they are in some way helpful to the reader. Two images illustrating the same thing is redundant. It would be like repeating the same information in text twice, but phrased slightly differently each time. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

We do not have "Two images illustrating the same thing". Those are different images of different exhibitions of sympathies with Lebanon. The responses are listed in the text, and the images bring the list of sympathies to life. Banana Republic (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

We have two images of buildings with lighting that looks like the Lebanese flag. What the images illustrate is that buildings were lit to look like the Lebanese flag. That they are different buildings does not change the fact that the concept of lighting that looks like the Lebanese flag is the same. To my eye, multiple images showing buildings with lighting that looks like the Lebanese flag is clutter. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The photos do the job that they are supposed to do, which is to reinforce the text. The text lists demonstrations of solidarity with the People of Lebanon from different areas around the world. If more photos are added, it would be appropriate to make a gallery subsection to reinforce the text even more. For now, we only have two, so it's not necessary to create a gallery. Banana Republic (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think two is OK for now, however the flag pictures should yield way to more substantive images if needed. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Silos & shielding

Is the claim "part of the silos' sturdy structure survived, shielding a large area of western Beirut from greater destruction" valid? It has one source, (which may be partisan - I'm not familiar with the publication), but I thought we had decided in earlier discussion that it was not the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the source either, but the author of the piece, K Y Oweis, seems to be reliable enough to write for Reuters [3], plus it seems entirely plausible that the presence of the building has somehow attenuated the effects of the blast for the area behind it. Perhaps we could add a 'reportedly', since the source quotes a 'western security official'. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: 2020 Beirut fire into 2020 Beirut explosion; dated: September 2020. Proposer's Rationale: The two events are linked. Doesn't make sense to have two separate articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This doesn't seem to be an event distinct or notable enough to have its own separate article. Love of Corey (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – 2020 Beirut fire is so non-notable that should be deleted altogether. I'm going to put it up at AfD when I get to the bottom of all the instructions. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ok, I redirected the page to 2020 Beirut explosion Germartin1 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Spontaneously combusting food parcels

a large fire erupted in food parcels

Really? Can a German speaker please check the source cited for this? 12:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Now changed to :

a large fire erupted in a cooking oil warehouse and food parcels...

Same issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Why no picture of the Tel Aviv City Hall?

The article has an invisible note that says to see discussion about the Tel Aviv City Hall, but I saw none. I have a picture of the Tel Aviv City Hall with the colors of the Lebanese flag. Is there a reason not to include it? Israel and Lebanon are officially enemy states and the topic of the Tel Aviv city hall is discussed extensively in the section.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That discussion has been archived and can now be found at Talk:2020 Beirut explosion/Archive 1#Images and videos. In summary, it's excessive to have two images showing basically the same thing (buildings lit up to look like the Lebanese flag) in that section. The argument in favour of the Tehran image is that it is a way better image. The argument in favour of the Tel Aviv image is that it is more pertinent. I'm personally neutral as to which aspect is more important and should be given precedence. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Tel-Aviv one is more relevant. It can always be zoomed in. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Tel Aviv image is inappropriate since Israel is now again bombing Lebanon yet again. It is a show of crocodile tears, so the Tehran image would be less insulting. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The state of war between Israel and Lebanon just makes the response by the Mayor of Tel Aviv even more notable. Banana Republic (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ِAgreed. The animosity between the two states makes the notion and picture even more worthy of incorporation, your POV or mine on the war status is completely irrelevant.Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned livestock carriers?

Livestock carriers Abou Karim I (sunk) and Abou Karim III (badly damaged) are mentioned in the article as "abandoned" (as in, already abandoned before the disaster). What is the source for this? Marinetraffic lists them both as "active". --2.36.89.27 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Just seen this. Found no RS for "abandoned", though they were certainly laid up for several years per sources. Copyedited whole section and rationalised references. Davidships (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Parallel structure problems in first sentence

The end of the first sentence has at least two grammatical problems that I tried to fix (but my edit was reverted): ". . . causing at least 200 deaths, 3 reported missing, 6,500 injuries, US$10–15 billion in property damage, and leaving an estimated 300,000 people homeless."

Problem 1. (harder to fix) "Causing" takes an object. In this sentence, it takes multiple objects: "deaths," "3 reported missing," "injuries," and "US$10–15 billion in damage." "Deaths," "injuries," and "dollars in damage" make sense as objects since they are nouns. But "3 reported missing" is not a noun. You can't "cause 3 reported missing." You can "cause 3 people to be reported as missing," but that's kind of wordy in the middle of serial list.. I admit that this is the more difficult problem to fix, and I don't have an elegant solution without recasting the sentence more than I did (in my reverted edit).

Problem 2. (very easy to fix) The structure requires another and in order to be grammatically (and logically) correct. As it is written, there is a list of objects that connect to causing. The list after "causing" allows you not to have to repeat "causing" each time, but you can see the problem when you expand the list. So, "causing 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" is equivalent to saying "causing 1, causing 2, causing 3, causing 4, and causing 5." Here is the expansion:

(1) causing at least 200 deaths,

(2) causing 3 reported missing, [this is Problem 1 above]

(3) causing 6,500 injuries,

(4) causing US$10–15 billion in property damage, and

(5) causing leaving an estimated 300,000 people homeless.

The 5th item is the problem. Clearly, the intent was for leaving to be part of a list of two progressive verbs in a list at a higher hierarchical level. So, you need one and to connect "causing . . . and leaving . . . " and you need ANOTHER and in the list of FOUR objects of causing. The intent was for the sentence to read ". . . causing 1, 2, 3, and 4, and leaving . . . people homeless." BOTH ands are required. @Deeday-UK: Holy (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I probably would not have objected to what you suggest, i.e. "causing 1, 2, 3, and 4, and leaving . . . people homeless", but what you actually wrote is "causing 1, 2, and 3, 4, and leaving . . . people homeless", which didn't sound right. In any case, what stops you from rewriting the whole sentence or splitting it into two sentences? As long as it's clear and reads naturally (which I believe the current sentence does), I'm happy. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK:Thanks for replying! Now I see that I put the 1st of the 2 required ands in the wrong place. Good catch. It may read "naturally" now because it may not be natural for people, reading quickly, to parse accurately a complex structure like this. Many egregious grammatical errors, which don't belong in high-quality, well edited, formal writing (as we are trying to achieve here), can pass off as sounding natural. Do you have any suggestion for fixing problem 1? You didn't have to characterize my edit summary as "nonsensical." The problem was the parallel structure, as I have explained here, and which I wrote in the edit summary. My putting the and in the wrong place must have been confusing, but doesn't make the edit summary nonsensical. Holy (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether the 3 people still missing is worthy of being mentioned alongside the estimated 200 deaths and 6,500 injuries is another short debate that could lead to the correction of problem 1. Problem 2 can be rephrased as "the homelessness of 300,000 people" so as to not require the second "and". CalDoesIt (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Taking figures and sentence structure (or some of it) from the Reuters source ref. 80 [4] (the most recent reliable one I could find), we could say, for example: "causing 190 deaths and more than 6,500 injuries, with 3 people missing. The blast left 300,000 people homeless and caused $15 billion in damage." --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. The phrasing is an improvement. I like the split into two sentences from the Reuters example but how it currently stands is fine. CalDoesIt (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Move back?

The article on the October explosion has been deleted, should this be moved back to 2020 Beirut explosion?--Pokelova (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. The August 2020 event is the only notable 2020 Beirut explosion in Wikipedia. Since the initial page move was botched, and an admin will have to perform the page moves back. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Can an admin just speedy-move it back? I can't imagine many people objecting to it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - I nominated the move back to the uncontroversial move board, but Ammarpad removed it (for some reason) and said to hold a move discussion—even though I think it's rather uncontroversial, considering that this was the original title. I don't get it. -- Veggies (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Deaths and injuries again

Previous discussion here is no doubt superseeded by later official figures. There have been several editing changes over the months but without addition of updated references. More changes made now by an IP apparently in good faith but, again, refs remained unchanged. Hopefully someone has the right data source now.Davidships (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I updated the death toll with this ref:https://www.care.org/news-and-stories/press-releases/6-months-later-beirut-blast-still-sends-shock-waves-through-lebanese-communities/.Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Subtitle / Closed captioning for the video

Greetings! Not sure where this should go but I would like to request subtitle / closed captioning for the video included in this article here. This is absolutely essential since I am deaf so I rely on subtitle / closed captioning in order to understand what people in videos are saying. Any assistance with that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Legion (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all the speech is in Arabic (so would need an Arabic speaker willing to transcribe and translate). As for the rest of the audio, it's just a very loud 'bang', followed by the sounds of the woman's hyperventilation. Hope that helps somewhat. Jthistle38 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation: Not “accidental”.

The term accidental should be removed from the preview tab because this is the 1st information that the reader receives and might very well skip the rest. Many of us suspect foul play, and the official court ruling is yet to come out. YesButGently (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haya Kobrosly, Kjm14, Haditahhann, Abdelrahman Fakhreddine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

current situation

please take a photograph of that place and put this article to show how things have been change. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Smoldering Beirut port silo risks total collapse amid fire

Here is the Associated Press via MSN released this article at Smoldering Beirut port silo risks total collapse amid fire. Rjluna2 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

1.1 kiloton is not the biggest explosion

The mont blanc boat explosion in Halifax Canada was the closest to a nuclear blast with about 10 kiloton of tnt power.

If someone can update this. 24.201.11.8 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

request to add the hyperlink for aouad et al 2021 and temsah et al and all scientific published research papers Charles aouad (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 22:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Some readability improvements in section "Casualties":

Original: A total of 218 people were confirmed dead from the explosion, with over 7,000 people were injured.

Proposed: A total of 218 people were confirmed dead from the explosion, and injured a further 7,000.

Original: Foreigners from at least 22 countries were among the casualties

Proposed: Foreign nationals from at least 22 countries were among the casualties CurdyKai (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

In the Shipping section line "The edible-oil tanker ship Amadeo II, being used as a bunker barge at the port...", I request that the word "bunker" be linked to the page on bunkering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkering).

The reason is that this is not a common term that everyone is likely to be familiar with unless they happen to know shipping jargon. I had to search for information to understand what a "bunker barge" might be. Initially it sounded like possibly people were living on it or something similar. If it had been linked I would have understood what it actually is much quicker and not have been distracted from reading the article. Thank you. CulturaVore (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of educational institutions

Hello,

Could we add a sentence on the rehabilitation of educational institutions?

- Text: "With at least 85,000 children directly affected by the explosion, UNESCO has restored 280 schools damaged by the blast, as part of the Li-Beirut initiative, providing 35 million dollars."

- Sources:

France 24: https://www.france24.com/en/20200827-unesco-in-massive-fundraising-drive-for-blast-hit-beirut

The 961: https://www.the961.com/unesco-rehabilitated-280-educational-institutions/

Regards, E.poul (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

Deaths : 1,700 BaronReznik (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)