Talk:2020 Beirut explosion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Covid-19 details in #Relief_Operations

I think, because it's been mentioned in so many news reports regarding the Beirut Blast, that the recovery efforts' struggle to simultaneously save lives from the disaster zone and keep the infected from infecting others, that there should be a subsection within Relief Operations that stresses the issues regarding this angle, perhaps even redirecting to the COVID-19 pandemic page in general. For future readers of Wikipedia, I think this is pertinent information regarding this event, just as the Spanish Flu is necessary to keep in mind when discussing World War 1. Already in the article, the Covid-19 pandemic is mentioned twice, once in 2020 Beirut explosions#Background and again in 2020 Beirut explosions#Damage.

I don't think a full section is warranted, just a subsection within 2020 Beirut explosions#Relief_Operations that describes the context in a Covid-19 pandemic lens.

Here are just a few examples I could find. Here's one from SPGlobal, focusing on economics. Here's one from the Washington Post, comparing relief efforts to anti-pandemic measures. Here's one from CBS News, about the public fear of both homelessness and COVID-19 within Beirut. A more scholarly source, a report by UNICEF regarding the immediate effects of the explosion on Lebanon's response to the virus, and UNICEF's at-time-of-reporting plans to aid Beirut. The International Organization for Migration report on homelessness caused by the Beirut Blast, and how relief efforts are affected by COVID-19.

RobotGoggles (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally this article should link to COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. Updates are requested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Pls_take_care_of_article_concerning_COVID-19_pandemic_in_Lebanon. Regards --80.187.102.22 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that both the main article for COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon should be linked, perhaps not front-and-center, because it's not like these explosions were caused by the pandemic, but they absolutely intensified and worsened the results of the pandemic. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
An entire subsection might be excessive. Even a separate paragraph might be overkill. The single sentence "Relief efforts were complicated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon." might be a good start. TompaDompa (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Looking a bit closer at those sources, I find that the first one is not really relevant here (it's about insurance assessments, not relief), the second and third ones are about the effects of the explosion on the COVID-19 situation (not the effect of COVID-19 on the relief efforts), the fourth one only briefly mentions that some equipment used to fight COVID-19 was destroyed and that the number of COVID-19 cases have increased since the explosion, and the fifth one mentions COVID-19 mostly as part of the background to the problems that existed prior to the explosion. What are we meant to write about COVID-19 in the "Relief operations" section, exactly? None of this seems to be a particularly good fit. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

In International part in reactions section, please add information that Sydney Opera House was lit with Lebanese cedar, which is icon of the Lebanon itself. Here is the reference (https://amp.sbs.com.au/v1/news/article/sydney-opera-house-lights-up-with-lebanese-cedar-in-solidarity-with-beirut/b6eded30-21e7-46c7-8698-75199bb8d7ac). 114.125.251.179 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. It's listed in note h. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"bomb of some kind"

According to this (and some other sources such as Reuters), President Donald Trump suggested that the explosions were caused by a "bomb of some kind". Perhaps this should be added to the "Cause" section? Ahmadtalk 04:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources concur, perhaps? ——Serial 04:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Just because Trump said something does not mean we have to jump the gun. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Trump's record is such that the logical conclusion is that he is making it up unless otherwise demonstrated. Several news sources say the Pentagon rejects Trump's theory.[1][2][3][4]Calmecac5 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:WEIGHT: 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. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. This single source is consequently not enough for inclusion. TompaDompa (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
All we can say is under reactions that Trump said this. He certainly isn't reliable enough to put it under causes. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Fully agree.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Trump can easily hide behind the anonymous advice supposedly given by "several of his Generals". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Trump has a track record comparable to the Daily Mail, which is a WP:DEPRECATED source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). We should not even mention that he said it unless other sources emerge that say the same thing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Why can’t it be listed under international responses? Even previous editors have suggested it would be ok to place under responses instead of causes.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason as I stated earlier. Per WP:WEIGHT: 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. We don't mention minority views simply to note that they are minority views in cases like this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You also cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL which clearly is met because multiple major reliable news sources have covered Trump’s claim from CNN to Politico to The Hill to Hindustan Times.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The WP:EXCEPTIONAL part is not that Trump said it, but the contents of what he said. TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT would only apply if it were a minority view that he made this comment. He is a major public, international figure so it is appropriate that this is under the international reactions section. Obviously it shouldn't be under causes. Similarly, since this is under reactions, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to the claim that Trump said this, not the claim he is actually making. There are multiple verifiable sources that he made this comment so there is no problem. Scleractinian (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not really how WP:WEIGHT works. Trump's opinion that it was an attack is the viewpoint of a tiny minority at this point. WP:WEIGHT addresses this multiple times: 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)., and 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.
I never applied WP:EXCEPTIONAL with regards to whether this should be in the reactions section, only to the first argument about whether this should be in the cause section. That's why I was incredulous that anyone would say that it was met. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reposting my edit summary from last night on here for posterity. Trump isn't an expert on explosions. Generals tend to see everything as a nail. Let's not keep this until there are more evidence from official sources. --intelatitalk 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bait30 Here is the discussion. I see consensus of three people saying not to keep the quote.--intelatitalk 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I also see consensus of three people (me, FunkMonk, and Trekker) saying to include in international responses section.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
That reading of their comments is a bit of a stretch. Even if what they meant was that it should be included (I'll let them clarify for themselves), that doesn't constitute WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep a brief mention in the "international responses" that Trump said that. Like it or not, the president of the USA is a very influential person, and even if the theory that it was a bomb is ridiculous, the fact that he floated that theory is notable and it's well enough cited. --Slashme (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The off-the-cuff speculation of a person with a penchant for making ill-informed statements shot from the hip and for telling untruths on a daily basis is WP:UNDUE, no matter what office that person holds, unless the fact that he said it itself becomes a significant aspect of the story. Take it out. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Agricolae here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I removed it. If we have this in the article at this point, one of two things is going to happen: (1) we violate WP:WEIGHT by not properly noting how much of a minority viewpoint this is (as was the case), or (2) we dedicate an entire paragraph to basically calling Trump out for having what is at this point an extreme minority viewpoint. Obviously, neither option is acceptable. There is at present no WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion and The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. per WP:ONUS. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It is a sub-story-line that is more about the person who said it than the event, and such stories tend to last only until the next dubious tweet. A year from now when someone comes looking for information on the actual event, this is unlikely to give them the slightest insight. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree and while Trump may be an important figure that doesn’t mean that everything he says needs to be Included especially if no other prominent figures have agreed with what he has said.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Beirut explosion seems a catastrophic 'accident similar to 2001 Toulouse fertilizer factory blast,' detonations expert tells RT — RT World News". State Of Press. 5 August 2020. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  2. ^ Gilbert, David (5 August 2020). "Trump Fuels Conspiracy Theories By Claiming Beirut Explosion Was Caused By 'A Bomb'". Getaka News. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  3. ^ Relman, Eliza. "Trump says Beirut explosion 'looks like a terrible attack,' contradicting Lebanese officials who implied it was likely an accident". Business Insider. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  4. ^ "US defense officials contradict Trump: No indication yet of attack in Beirut". CNN. Retrieved August 5, 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

In the section "Relief operations", please add the following:

In the first week after the explosion, civilians gathered in the hundreds and thousands to volunteer to clean up the debris on the streets and inside homes and businesses in Gemmayze, Achrafieh, and Karantina neighborhoods. Many civil society organizations offered equipment and food to the volunteers, while many residents and businesses opened their homes and hotels for free to those who lost their homes in the blast. [Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/they-return-to-homes-damaged-in-beiruts-blast-to-discover-someone-has-already-cleaned-them/2020/08/10/85c3bda0-db04-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html] Beirutexpert (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done KRtau16 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Warehouse door welding

I notice that the article assumes a dispute about which warehouse door the workers were working on. However saying sources don't imply any connection to a warehouse. However, that is a poor assumption. It's not necessary that every source will detail the whole thing. If it's known that welding at a door, no matter the building, caused it, and someone simply says welding at a door caused it, then it can't be presumed to be contradictory.

Is there any evidence of sources saying welding at any other building caused it or even if other buildings were under welding. If there's no contradiction, then this article is making up one. And it seems strange to me. Everyone doesn't have to be completely detailed, nor that makes them contradictory. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: i am the one to blame for the wording. initially i added that the welding was at a door of the warehouse, because that is what a source stated. however, after reading a lot more about the starting of the fire, i noticed that a decent number of sources were subscribing to the theory that fireworks were initially lit before the ammonium nitrate was, and since it was not clear whether the fireworks and the ammonium nitrate were stored in the same warehouse, i noticed that not all sources actually had stated that the door being welded was that of the warehouse storing the ammonium nitrate, so i don't know if the sources that did state that were accurately describing what the lbci reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection (or alternatively, whether the lbci was accurately describing what the attendees of the briefing reported, or had not been aware that they were making the connection). after all, i was guilty of making the connection myself before being aware that i had made it, and did not know if some of the sources had too.
so i made an edit to state that the connection implied by some sources may not have been present in others. because at least one editor did not understand which "the" i was referring to, i added more detail to explain what i was referring to. i did not mean to imply that there was a dispute between sources, and i apologize if that is the case. i merely wished to note that although some sources made the connection, perhaps inadvertently, it was not a connection expressed by all sources, and i did not want any readers to assume that the connection should necessarily be made. i did not want to appear as if i was presenting original research, so my wording was focused on what the sources reported. however, it was difficult to do so without treading in original research territory. if you know of a better way to present this, or believe that, under wikipedia policies or guidelines, it should not be presented at all, please feel free to edit my words to how you see fit.
also, i think i encountered at least one source that mentioned that the warehouses were in a general state of disrepair, so it was not inconceivable to me that welders were brought to repair a number of warehouses. unfortunately, i cannot remember at all where i read it, though i don't recall thinking that it was an unreliable source. dying (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Just because someone doesn't state which door, doesn't mean they mean another door. Even if you do think it does, there is no need to mention whether it was the one with the ammonium nitrate or some other warehouse. Because we'll be making our own assumptions of what it meant.
And fireworks actually means firecrackers bursting. If you have sources about crackers being set on fire then please add it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
i was neither trying to imply that the other sources meant that another door was being worked on, nor do i believe that. i merely wanted to note that other sources did not explicitly state that the door being worked on was a door of the warehouse containing the ammonium nitrate. i am unaware of a better way to state this, so please edit the article if you do.
i am not sure if you are making a distinction between fireworks and firecrackers, but here is one reliable source that posits that fireworks were lit before the ammonium nitrate exploded. dying (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
'The' and 'a' differentiation does make it seem like that, especially when stating some sources implied the warehouse with the ammonium nitrate was worked on and others don't. Even if you didn't mean to imply. And as far as fireworks go, yes I was distinguishing it from crackers, but that was my mistake. They have the same meaning, I misassumed its meaning because I've only heard it in statements like "watching fireworks". LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
But anyway your source says fireworks and ammonium nitrate apparently fueled the explosion, Fireworks, ammonium nitrate likely fueled Beirut explosion. That's not the same as being a real cause, but suspected cause. The authorities have identified a cause already, and we'll need far more than initial speculation to contradict. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@LéKashmiriSocialiste: i was aware at the time that adding a footnote to the indefinite article "a" could be problematic, as it may have unintended implications, as you have indicated, but i also personally felt at the time that deliberately using the indefinite article "a" while a cited reliable source used the definite article "the" without explaining the discrepancy was a more egregious editorial decision. however, i am also aware that this may be a personal judgement call, which is why i stated that if you felt that it should be removed, i had no problem with you doing so.
also, no worries about making that distinction inadvertently. after all, making distinctions inadvertently happens to be exactly what we're discussing, isn't it? i was guilty of it myself when initially posting with the word "the", and it's what i was worried that a reliable source may have done.
you are right that the source i provided only suspected that fireworks ignited the ammonium nitrate. that's why i stated that these sources were "subscribing to the theory that fireworks were initially lit before the ammonium nitrate was". however, reading about experts subscribing to that theory is what made me realize that i may have made a distinction inadvertently when i first used the definite article "the" in this article, despite checking multiple times to make sure that what the reliable source stated was what i was stating.
by the way, i have since come across an instance of a reliable source strongly implying that the warehouse where the fire started and the warehouse where the ammonium nitrate was stored were two different warehouses. a reporter from al jazeera stated that the initial warehouse fire had spread to the warehouse with the ammonium nitrate, and the wording chosen would be absurd, though still technically grammatically correct, if they were the same warehouse. if you are interested in watching it, the video is here, with the relevant section beginning around 05:05. notably, the reporter does not mention that the fire started in a warehouse storing fireworks. also, there have been multiple reports that fireworks were stored in the same warehouse as the ammonium nitrate, with one source stating that there was one warehouse to store "hazardous goods".
also of possible interest is this article, which notes that witness reports and the welders' manager's statement appear to be in conflict.
anyway, apologies for the delayed response. i drafted it, but then somehow forgot to actually post it. dying (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to blame you for anything. We can't always be accurate. But mentioning it's something else over every source not saying the door was from the same warehouse sounds unnecessary and creates a confusion. Now if the sources weren't clear as to which warehouse welding went on, that of course is no one's fault but theirs. Regardless even putting a doesn't mean anything wrong. Because we're not in any way implying where the fire might have or might have not taken place.
Lastly the other reports you specified are of an earlier origin and as anyone knows information keeps being updated. Newsweek says that the blasts were due to fireworks in wheat silos. But the ammonium nitrate was in the warehouse. The claim was later dismissed. Can't use an earlier claim to comtradict it but it can be added as an initial claim. That's actually already been done
Al Jazeera says the fire started in a warehouse and spread to another warehouse with the ammonium nitrate at 5:05. They don't have to mention of course what was there, doesn't matter. But they mention a warehouse instead of wheat silos unlike Newsweek, that's different. As for witness and welders' statements do appear to be contradictory.
Also unless someone has presently contradicted after the official statement was made, one can't call it a contradiction. Updates keep happening and new information keeps coming out. When was the Al Jazeera video published? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@LéKashmiriSocialiste: oh, don't worry about whether or not you're blaming me for anything; you would be perfectly justified in doing so. i blamed myself right at the start of my first response. also, it appears that some of the confusion may be over whether or not i think the footnote should have remained. i should make clear that, once you had removed the footnote, i could more clearly see your point about the confusion it caused, so i support your deletion and thank you for raising the issue. if my comments sound like a defense, i should make clear that they weren't intended to be. i was merely trying to deconstruct my thought process so that we could better understand why i did what i did. apparently, i might have an issue of not making my intentions clear, and i apologize for that.
by the way, this is a minor point, but the newsweek article i referenced stated that another source "initially reported that a warehouse near the port's wheat silos containing fireworks had caught fire, causing the explosion", and i am currently assuming that the phrase "containing fireworks" modified "a warehouse" rather than "wheat silos", meaning that it was a warehouse, and not the silos themselves, that contained fireworks. i only mention it so others reading this would not believe that fireworks in silos may have been a theory posited by newsweek without understanding that the newsweek statement may have been ambiguous.
also, i found that al jazeera video in this article, which implies that it was probably dated 2020.08.06 or earlier. i don't necessarily believe the detail that it is reporting; i merely mentioned it to illustrate the wide range of theories that have been reported. i agree with you that older theories may not be as relevant to this article anymore. dying (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We can't use our own assumptions of wheat grain or silos. Besides it's an earlier report and firecrackers are already mentioned. As for Al Jazeera I do find that. There's also a report about finding that the fire apparently started in warehouse 9 according to sources. also Guardian reports that fireworks were in the same warehouse according to its sources including a port worker: [1]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@LéKashmiriSocialiste: i somehow missed that the fire started in warehouse 9, so thanks for mentioning that. the situation makes more sense to me now, since i was trying to reconcile how, even though haaretz reported that witnesses had seen smoke around 17:00, al jazeera reported that the fire brigade only received a call around 17:55.
i had also seen a map of the port's free zone that included an area labelled "POMPIERS" (french for "firefighters") that was near the warehouses, and another labelled "NOUVEAU BATIMENT POMPIERS" slightly further away in a map of the whole port (near entrance 9 around the center of the map), so it makes sense to me if the fire had first started in warehouse 9, and the port's own firefighters had tried to battle the flame, but once it had gotten out of control and spread to warehouse 12, port officials or state security panicked and called in the city firefighters.[original research] this would also explain why the city firefighters were told that the warehouse contained fireworks, rather than whatever warehouse 9 had actually contained, and why the city firefighters who had arrived had said, "There's something wrong here; there is ... a huge fire". dying (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You can't say there were firecrackers in warehouse 9 unless there's a source explicitly saying that. That would be original research. And a source that talked about an earlier suspected cause can't qualify. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

sorry, let me rephase that last part.

this would also explain why the city firefighters were told that the warehouse that they were heading to contained fireworks, rather than whatever warehouse 9 had actually contained, since they may have only been told about the fire at warehouse 12 (which contained fireworks) and not warehouse 9 (which may or may not have contained fireworks).[original research] this would also explain why the city firefighters who had arrived had said, "There's something wrong here; there is ... a huge fire", since they may have previously been under the impression that there was only one warehouse on fire.[original research]

apologies for the confusion. dying (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "2020 Beirut explosion". Several main arguments were offered in favour of the move, including: 1) COMMONNAME, with most statements arguing that a clear majority of reliable sources utilised the singular. 2) There was a single main explosion that is the primary cause of the article; 3) PLURAL generally prefers singular titles. Against that were: 1) There was more than one explosion, and the more accurate name should be used 2) Sources, particularly some of the more in-depth reports used the plural. All these arguments were specifically considered and disputed, but there is a clear majority of support for the move. A couple of comments specifically requested a name including "Port of Beirut" or similar, however these received far too little discussion/support to act as a 3rd option. That said, they weren't specifically rebutted/refused so there isn't a demonstrated consensus against that as a future name. (page move and tidying to follow) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)



2020 Beirut explosions → 2020 Beirut explosion – Drop the S. "Explosions" refers to multiple explosions, either at different locations or different times. This was one single explosion that got bigger and bigger in a span of a few minutes. Furthermore, reliable sources, including all main stream media are calling it "Beirut explosion" without an S. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

*Strongly Oppose - It was clearly a smaller explosion that caused a bigger explosion. While the damage comes from the main explosion, multiple happened. TheKaloo (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Weak Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME TheKaloo (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose At the very least, video suggest at least two explosions.-intelatitalk 15:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Multiple explosions is plural, even if they happened in quick succession &/or in the same location. Jim Michael (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose—as of right now, the sourced information in the article indicates there were multiple explosions. So the plural form is consistent with the scope of the article as it stands, and would also include the proximate and earlier events/explosion(s) that led up to the very large detonation of the ammonium nitrate storage cache. N2e (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone who opposed this so far is opposing it based on my argument, while not discussing the fact that reliable sources are calling it an explosion. In singular term. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Of course they are basing it on your argument. That's the basis for the move proposal. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and nominator. The reality of the situation (one minor blast and then one large blast) doesn't change what the common name of this subject. After a review of the 92 sources in this article, I think only two use the plural "explosions". The remaining refer to it as the "explosion" or "blast". The s should clearly be dropped from explosion. Also important to note that almost no other article uses "explosions", even one's where there were multiple blasts. See 1944 Bombay explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per aforementioned comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PLURAL which states that "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles ... This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.". And the fact of the matter in this case is that there was one big explosion which did the major damage. Secondary explosions and fires do not warrant a special title. Moreover, the current title gives the misleading impression that there were separate events when there was clearly just one. Finally, the article was first created as 2020 Beirut port explosion and has been moved several times without consensus. If there is no consensus, we should return to the original title. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To demonstrate precedent, consider September 11 attacks and Collapse of the World Trade Center. Plural is reasonable in the first case because there were separate attacks on four different targets in different places. Singular is appropriate in the second case because, even though the two towers collapsed separately, it was essentially one event in one place. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's a misinterpretation of WP:PLURAL. The World Trade Center collapse is treated as a singular event because the two towers were part of the same building - the World Trade Center. Deb (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
      • First off, three towers, as WTC7 went down as well. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were all separate buildings: WTC1 was finished in 1970, WTC2 was finished in 1972, and WTC7 was finished in 1987. At best, they were part of the same complex, but definitely not the same building. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Same complex - amounts to the same thing. It's a poor example. Deb (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment TheKaloo, intelati, N2e and Solavirum, you all opposed because there was more than one explosion. No one is arguing that there wasn't, but the fact is that per WP:COMMONNAME, almost every reliable source, including almost all in this article, use the singular, explosion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Reliable sources all seem to refer to it in the singular (explosion, blast, etc).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There were multiple explosions, and really it doesn't matter. This is what redirects are for. --Slashme (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It was one massive explosion. Without that, it would be a story about a small fire. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Although technically two explosions, most video evidence shows one big blast and is referred to as an explosion (singular), it is also easier to find and look up. 199.202.95.19 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose there were clearly two distinct explosions, the second one much larger than the first. Plural is definitely the proper usage here. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This is the more factually accurate title. The proposed move target is however a perfectly reasonable search term and should serve as a redirect to here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Whatever primarily explosion did take place, it would not be notable apart from having triggered the fire and the subsequent explosion. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Support: Firstly, because the fire and first series of explosions (fireworks, etc) was not notable and would not merit a Wikipedia article about it; only the main explosion would. Secondly, because the plural is misleading: it leads readers to ask "Where was the other explosion?" Wtf2wtf (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 18:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support "The death toll from the massive explosion in Beirut has risen to 135, with some 5,000 wounded and tens still missing, Lebanon's health minister told Al Manar television."[1] (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and not just by the conclusive directions laid out in WP:COMMONNAME but because choosing the plural, now that the smoke has cleared, literally and figuratively, would simply be wrong. There was one explosion that simply happened in stages, exactly like, for instance, the explosion of a thermonuclear device: the fission bomb explodes firstg acting as the "primary" bomb and the fusion capsule then explodes as the "secondary" one. We'd never consider denoting one thermonuclear explosion in the plural. The Beirut explosion started by a preliminary explosion that clearly -and almost immediately- caused the second one. In 2001, we had terrorist attacks against the U.S., rightly in the plural; in 2005, we had the London bombings, incidents separate and unrelated in terms of causation, again rightly in the plural; in 2020, we have an explosion in Beirut. -The Gnome (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:COMMONNAME and the sources cited by others. While there were two explosions, this article is more about an singular event. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change of name, since the source of the explosions was concentrated in and around the same general site where ammonium nitrate was being stored, a flameable chemical substance.Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes, the second explosion was a knock-on but it was still a second explosion. Deb (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - "Explosions" implies there were multiple explosions in different locations across the city while there was only one site. Most sources also refer to the event as "explosion". TheLordRutherfordOfNelson (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, the pyrotechnic events leading up to the explosion probably would not have been termed an explosion or explosions without the big explosion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - though there were two explosions, only the latter one was substantial. It might also be worth considering "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" (similar to what Jmncnj07 suggested below), which still references multiple explosions, but avoids implying that there were multiple separate explosions all around the city (which is my main issue with the current title). –Sonicwave talk 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - EDIT: changed to support. I disagree that reliable sources are calling it one explosion with any broad consensus. For example, a NYT article calls them "explosions". I'm not too opposed to scoping down Beirut to "Port of Beirut", but since the devastation impacted much of the city's core, it might be limiting. We should follow leading newspapers, which are not scoping it down with any majority. Prad Nelluru (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment check out simple search of "Beirut" in Google News, easily 95%+ uses the singular "blast" or "explosion" when describing the event itself, with most articles explaining the series of events that includes multiple explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - "2020 Port of Beirut explosions" seems to address the issues from both sides the best, but for this proposal specifically I definitely prefer "2020 Beirut explosion" since "explosions" really would imply (in my mind) some series of explosions across the city. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the second explosion is really the subject of the article. The first one is comparatively trivial except for the fact that it caused the second one. --WMSR (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The first explosion is the one that destroyed that chemical warehouse, while the second explosion is the one that destroyed most of the city. Both are the integral part of all of this event. Chongkian (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lol this is predicting that there will be more explosions... kinda scary --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiothenes (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as there were clearly two distinct explosions.5225C (talk • contributions) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - it was one major event, plural indicates multiple separate events of similar scale. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support The singular title is preferred as it happen in a single city. I think the article would be rename to 2020 Port of Beirut explosion to be more precise. 36.77.94.46 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the lead states "On the evening of 4 August 2020, at 18:08 EEST, an extremely powerful explosion occurred in the city of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." Regardless of what the cause was, the notable event was a single explosion. That is the topic of this article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Medium Support The Tunguska event article contains multiple events, but only the titular one clearly matters most. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support while technically there were some smaller explosions at first, the cause of all the damage, and the reason this article exists at all, is the one massive blast at the end Hongooi (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Only one explosion caused all of that damage we've seen in Beirut yesterday. Love of Corey (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - The severity of the second explosion does not change the fact that there were two, individually distinguishable explosions. The first explosion seems to have been fireworks, and the second ammonium nitrate; they both apparently detonated from different accelerants, although not confirmed. GyozaDumpling (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (further consideration) GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - There were two explosions. Even if the second one was much stronger than the other, there were most certainly two. Indeed, most people caught the second explosion on camera because they saw or heard the first one. RBolton123 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Bellingcat have investigated this and say "Although there were claims of explosions at other locations, there does not appear to be images or videos of this, and it is likely these reports were simply a result of the vast explosion at the docks." There was one single large explosion that is the significant subject of this article. David Crayford ☎ 07:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "Explosions" makes it sound like there were many separate explosions within the city, which is not the case. Even if there were multiple explosions inside the building, events like this are referred to as one singular event. Compare that with the 2015 Tianjin explosions, which had many explosions over multiple days. Nihlus 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If it is in the singular, it is more accurate. While there were two explosions, the first one by itself is not very significant and would be nothing without the second, much larger one. Elevating the first explosion to the level of the second in terms of importance takes away from the focus of the article. It's about a disaster whose most important element is the larger explosion, of which the death toll is high and the consequences are disastrous. The scope of the article should revolve around the main disaster. The article for the 2015 Tianjin explosions deserves a plural in the title because the two were comparable to each other in magnitude and took place mere minutes apart from each other. I also cite WP:COMMONNAME because nearly every single source I look at uses the term "explosion", not "explosions" (unless specifically speaking within the scope of both of them, which is really the only time the first one is ever discussed, which isn't common because it isn't as significant). This article itself, at least in the form I see it at present, uses the singular itself in the text more than the plural. LegendoftheGoldenAges85, Team  M  (talk | worse talk) 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support "2020 Beirut Explosions" could imply that there were multiple explosions throughout the course of 2020, rather than multiple consecutive explosions in one place on one date. To avoid confusion, it is most likely better to take off the S. Squid45 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose There were two explosions, but the focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion. That's why some of them use the singular form. This article covers the entire event, therefore the title is plural. The New York Times has an article covering the entire situation as well, and their title also uses plural. Mikalagrand (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Mikalagrand, from WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). If anything, your oppose rationale makes the case for the singular, as you said the focus of the media is mainly on the second explosion, thus we would use the title that is most commonly related to the event (the big, singular, explosion), versus the literal name. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The article has shifted from the focus of both explosions to the single, more deadly one. The first explosion can still be included, as that's key to what caused the second one. Admanny (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a single incident causing multiple explosions SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This was an incident and many major news reports show that there were two explosions. The cause is still not clear. I think its better to wait and see the outcoome of the investigation.95.219.151.195 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Even if there were smaller explosions in the same event, the major part of the event is a single large explosion. It wouldn't make sense to call an earthquake and all its aftershocks "earthquakes." It's all one event and making the title plural just adds unnecessary ambiguity. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Speaking of earthquakes: The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes started with a M 6.4, then a 7.1 one day later. The 7.1 was at the forefront of national attention, but didn't change the fact that there were multiple (notable) earthquakes. Same with these explosions. There was the first, much smaller and relatively inconsequential "6.4" explosion, then the damaging "7.1" explosion a few seconds later. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • GyozaDumpling, seems like the sources for your example note multiple, big earthquakes, separated by days apart: Californians’ Alert Apps Didn’t Sound for 2 Big Earthquakes. Why Not?; New York Times; July 8, 2019. Hardly an apt comparison, and if anything, proves the opposite point that you are trying to make. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Gonzo_fan2007, and somehow Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy suffices? They talk about an earthquake and its aftershocks not being called "earthquakes", but what happened in Beirut is not comparable to an initial "earthquake" followed by "aftershocks", it was an event with a "foreshock" and "mainshock", in seismology terms. This changes the title. If the second 7.1 hadn't happened, it would be the Ridgecrest earthquake. If the second explosion in Beirut hadn't happened, it would be the Beirut explosion. Simple. I fail to see how that comparison is lacking. GyozaDumpling (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
          • GyozaDumpling, my assumption was that Qwaiiplayer's earthquake analogy was referencing the typical experience of a large earthquake surrounded by small aftershocks, not an experience that the media described as "two big earthquakes". Take a look at Lists of earthquakes: only 5 articles in that list use "earthquakes" in the title, while the remaining 100+ article use the singular "earthquake" (where I can only assume that most of those earthquakes included multiple, big tremors). Again, like every oppose in this discussion, you are basing your rationale off of the fact that more than 1 explosion occurred, which no one is debating. The fact of the matter in that this event (the explosions, the resulting damage and death, and the international response) is being referred to as the Beirut explosion or the Beirut blast by almost all reliable sources. And when we determine the correct name of an article, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the criteria we use. Any other criteria is editorializing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Gonzo_fan2007 I have changed my stance on the title, but I still don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. If the 6.4 happened after the 7.1, it would be "earthquake". Because it happened before, it's "earthquakes". Qwaiiplayer is suggesting a typical earthquake-aftershock sequence, which isn't comparable to the "foreshock-mainshock" explosions. If we're gonna compare earthquake sequences to explosions then at least get the order right, because it makes a difference. It's just a weird comparison. GyozaDumpling (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with most sources and as the main explosion was much more powerful and hence the primary focus of the article, with the lesser explosions serving as context for it. StuartH (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose There was more than one explosion, so the article title should remain unchanged. Roman Biggus (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for two reasons. (a) By the Wikipedia principle that one should generally use the term that that something is usually known by (it's clear that news organisations etc. are using 'blast' or 'explosion' in the singular). (b) The two explosions weren't all that happened: there was a fire as well, so if one were to include the first (and non-notable) explosion in the title, then one could argue that the title could be 2020 Beirut fire and explosions. And maybe by extension 2013-2020 Beirut alleged poor handling of volatile substances followed by a fire and explosions and thoughts and prayers.--A bit iffy (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - there was just one notable event here, the big explosion. The rest is just backstory. Agricolae (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why do we have an entire page of discussion over the existence of a single letter?   ApChrKey   Talk 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - For reasons already stated by others and because I came to this page the day it happened and "Explosions" initially had me thinking there had been another significant explosion (and I had already known about the smaller ones leading up to it). The large/main explosion is obviously what people are coming to read about. Using the plural can be somewhat misleading (at least it was for me). 104.0.177.76 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – There was only one notable explosion, which deserves an article on Wikipedia: the big one involving the ammonium nitrate. The rest is just background information. Keep it simple and clear, just as the majority of sources do. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Its only the big explosion which is notable. People are saying it should stay at plural because there were "two" explosions, but really since there were fireworks involved there were likely several small explosions which contributed.★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The large majority of the disseminated footage with regards to the explosion displays the occurrence of a singular, large, recognisable explosion responsible for the following shock wave; the internal appearance of minute flashes or additional erroneous phenomena does not constitute the classification of the explosion as anything but a singular explosion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Abishe (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to note, I have seen the media refering to the catastrophe using both the title "explosion" and "explosions". So, it appears neither is exactly unaccepted. SecretName101 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were clearly multiple exlplosions. Singular would simply be factually incorrect. The most prevelant support argument is WP:COMMONNAME, but those citing it appear to neglect the fact that this is not the only criterium we use. In this case it is clearly outweighed by WP:PRECISE.Tvx1 19:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Tvx1, you are misrepresenting WP:PRECISE, which says Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. In this case, 2020 Beirut explosion is precise enough of a title, we don't need more precision by noting multiple explosions. WP:PRECISION doesn't mean WP:EXACTLYACCURATE, or as another user pointed out above, it would be 2020 Beirut fire and subsequent explosions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • And I strongly contest that using a singular noun is precise enough for what even the lead describes as a series of explosions. The singular is just plain wrong.Tvx1 20:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - technically there were 2 explosions however the notable explosion was clearly the second one, Had it just been the firework explosion this article wouldn't exist. As the nom says "explosions" gives the impression a previous explosion happened in Beirut before which is not the case. –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per practically all sources, and because the first explosion didn't do much in itself, other than ignite the second one. The second explosion is the subject of the article, the first one is just background, as someone else pointed out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Per COMMONNAME, it's referred to as a singular explosion in almost all news sources because only the larger explosion is significant. Nicereddy (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per COMMONNAME and because the big explosion is what really mattered here. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - "2020 Beirut Explosions" might mislead. Especially if the article is viewed in the far future by someone with no recollection of the event. The first thing they would imagine on reading the title is that there were several explosions in Beirut over the course of 2020. "2020 Beirut Explosion" is better, since we are talking about a single incident. A series of explosions can still be referred to as an explosion on the whole. The other appropriate option for me would be something like "4 August 2020 Beirut Explosions". hb2007 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As per WP:COMMONNAME, if we want to be exact saying there was multiple explosions, then we should include Fire in the title too. In 1 months time, people aren't going to talk about those multiple explosions that happened, it will be the explosion. ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Though there are 2 explosions, the first explosion's heat caused the much worse second explosion, and IMO can be concluded into one big explosion.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the big explosion is a clear fact. This was caused by a fire which may, or may not, have either caused or been caused by an other explosion; this other explosion is not as clear a fact. 93.172.49.0 (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - should be named Port of Beirut Disaster IMO. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Disaster is vague and doesn't indicate what specifically took place. –Sonicwave talk 16:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment "2020 Port of Beirut Explosion" would be closer to what we have, and specify the port. David Crayford ☎ 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - The Wikipedia article itself starts with and develops the 'one' major explosion due to ammonium nitrate, and treats the previous, smaller ones' as potential causes for the main 'one' explosion. All media references are to the 'Beirut explosion'. Public searches likewise. The disaster was due to on explosion due ammonium nitrate. Politis (talk)
  • Support -- difference in magnitude supports the singular. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly the common name. Evan (talk|contribs) 05:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – per COMMONNAME and for reasons already stated. Follow sources. TheBartgry (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I suggest to use 'disaster' instead of explosion or explosions (like Chernobyl disaster ) to describe this event. The investigations will show many sequence of events (other than explosion of explosive powder followed by the nitrates. mhd196 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Explosions plural signify multiple events, when what we know is, regardless of smaller explosions leading up to the main blast, the damage, death, and destruction was caused by a single explosion. One event. On the other hand, the most accurate way possible to title this page according to known fact(s), would be "2020 Beirut Port Explosion" but if were settling for a less descriptive title, it should be named "2020 Beirut Explosion" as it is one event that caused the destruction, damage, and death. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter? Either title is fine as readers are going to find it regardless. There were clearly two explosions as shown in multiple YouTube videos. That the first one is smaller is irrelevant. The second wouldn't have happened if the first one didn't and both killed people - the first one most notably resulting in the deaths of 5 firefighters, one of whom was buried on the day she was supposed to be married. Going for "explosion" over "explosions" is sizeist and, quite frankly, the whole discussion is rather WP:LAME. People are going to be unhappy regardless of the title, so what's the point of this? Pick something that doesn't even include "explosion" like "2020 Beiruit COVID-19 distraction", "2020 demonstration of why you shouldn't store fireworks with ammonium nitrate", "2020 news that isn't about COVID-19 or the US presidential election" or even "2020 Beirut boom that triggered a WP:LAME move discussion on Wikipedia". And, of course, this whole discussion is the result of a statement that is clearly incorrect so the nom should be WP:TROUTed! --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME -- The Anome (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME -- 2800:200:F410:2171:2C55:F3B0:6B9B:E3F3 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Does it really matter? Is this what we’re worried about here, one letter? Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were clearly two different explosions which succeded each other. People also only filmed the second explosion because they wanted to capture the first one. HDORS (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support People need to get over the technicalities of there being 2 explosions and instead look at how the majority of people will interpret "explosions" as there being several incidents, not just this one incident having a smaller and larger explosion. Authenticfennec (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME Lettlerhello 01:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Although I agree that people will be unhappy whichever title wins, there was only one event. Whether that event consisted of one or two blasts separated by a handful of seconds matters little. So, as the previous commenters noted, let's opt in favor of WP:COMMONNAME. AyaK (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It wasn't just a handful of seconds. The first explosion happened shortly after the fireworks started igniting. That was likely the catalyst for the second explosion, which happened a full 31 seconds later. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Debunking the FUD! - There seems to be a lot of FUD above about what actually happened, with people still questioning whether there were two explosions and making unsubstantiated claims about the timing. There is now a HD video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-vGkIKxGAg that clearly debunks the FUD. At 09:05 the first explosion occurs. As part of and immediately following that, fireworks can be seen exploding. At 09:36, with fireworks still exploding, the second explosion occurs. Shortly after that (about 3 seconds) the camera is blown over. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom and the plethora of reasons in support !votes. Honestly, if we're going to continue that there were multiple explosions, I would think we then have logically ought to have complete self-sustaining sections about each explosion. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Yes, technically there were multiple explosions, but only one of them caused widespread destruction. Johndavies837 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • If the first explosion hadn't happened, then the second explosion probably wouldn't have. It seems to be the ignition of the fireworks that triggered the second explosion. It was a combination of both that caused the destruction. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • We don't know this. AN will autoignite and then detonate if sufficiently high temperatures are reached, without any primary. The ignition of the fireworks may have had absolutely nothing to do with it. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure, it was just a coincidence. There has been a lot in local news here because at Kooragang, about 16.7 km (10.4 mi) south of me, Orica regularly stores up to 12,000 tonnes (more than 4 times what was in Beirut) of ammonium nitrate and experts say it's hard to ignite. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
          • No, not a coincidence. It was a fire in a fireworks warehouse; obviously there are going to be explosions going off. But an explosion 31 seconds earlier could not have been the trigger for the AN detonation. AN detonates on shock so if there was a triggering event, it was instantaneous and swallowed up in the ensuing blast. The most the earlier explosion could have done is spread the fire more aggressively. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
            • I suggest that you watch the video I linked to above. If the first explosion did not trigger the second, what did? The people at Orica, who store 12,000 tonnes of AN do not agree with you. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support When I saw "explosions" I was confused, it is pedantic. The atomic bomb was also multiple explosions, the first to compress the atomic material which is quite powerful, the second being the larger atomic blast - yet we refer to is as a single not multiple bombs. The clarification can be explained in the article but the title should reflect how most people think of this event. Likewise had it only been the fireworks it would not have been notable, the first explosion is notable only for causing the second one, it was the trigger for the main event, the topic of the article. -- GreenC 14:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You can't compare Beirut with an atomic bomb. A bomb is a single device and the explosions in it happen almost instantaneously. There were clearly two explosions in Beirut, 31 seconds apart. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I can, and I did. You are missing the point though. -- GreenC 16:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
And the first explosion neither triggered the second one nor would have been notable on its own. 38.100.31.66 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@GreenC - Not missing the point at all. Your argument is based on a bad analogy. @38.100.31.66 Experts who store 12,000 tonnes of AN disagree. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per GreenC & WP:COMMONNAME. 0qd (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support + CNN and BBC, and so on, used mostly the singular form in their headlines, and so, yes, WP:COMMONNAME seems quite clear in this case.–U.A.— 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and the fact that the second one is the one people and most media refer to. --AccordingClass (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - regardless of how many discrete explosions actually occurred, or how a primary ignition may have chained into several blasts, or whatever, this was a single destructive event and reliable sources describe this as a single event. Pluralizing suggests that several explosion events occurred at different times and at different locations over an extended period. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Support the proposed move. When people talk of the event, they say explosion not explosions. Sometimes it's good to step back for a bit.intelatitalk 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The fact is, there were multiple explosions, just because the second explosion was much larger, and most people refer to that while saying explosion; explosions is far more encyclopedic and accurate. We shouldn't be looking at popular parlance while determining a article title, we should be accurate for future readers' benefit. Further, in regards to the atomic bomb comparison, each atomic bomb uses an implosion to cause a much larger explosion, and that is well understood, and if not, this information is available within the atomic bomb page. However, in contrast, the Beirut Blast was a unique event, and the word "explosions" is more descriptive and helps users understand the event better. If we rename it to explosion, future users will come into this talk page again, confused, and ask that we change the page's name to explosions. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There were multiple explosions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Even if there were minor causative explosions for the large one, it's the large explosion that the article is actually talking about, and is the only explosion caused by ammonium nitrates confescated from the Rhosus. IF the article is written and is discussing the AMNitrate explosion, the article should be titled as such. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article lists two explosions, saying it in singular case would be misleading. ExistenceShallExist (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment How about something totally different and more general, such as "2020 Port of Beirut disaster"? That would sidestep the issue of how many explosions there were (though it appears to be primarily a single one). Drummerdg (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Quahog (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support due to the fact that the article is specifically about the enormous explosion that caused catastrophic damage. The far smaller explosion that occurred beforehand is not what people are looking for on this article and is thus rendered redundant. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Both singular and plural have good arguments, but the more important issue is that “Port” should be in the title. Adding “Port” makes it more accurate and explanatory. Whether that’s “2020 Beirut Port Explosion/s” or “2020 Port of Beirut Explosion/s” doesn’t matter – the word “Port” should be there, and multiple editors agree based on the text above. — Molly-in-md (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article says there were two explosions. Therefore the proposed move would be a violation of WP:PRECISE, and there's no benefit to readers in doing so.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There were multiple explosions, true, but they happened almost immediately after each other in the same location, and the second one is what really makes the event notable. "Explosion" seems the most appropriate article title. I am persuaded by the other support arguments. Rhino131 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Northern Moonlight 17:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Oeoi (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It should be noted that there were two explosions because the first one is what led to the second one. Idan (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Fairly straightforward case here; using the plural is akin to titling an article "xxxx earthquake and aftershocks". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support No new arguments to contribute, I just agree with most of the supporters above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support There were clearly two explosions! However, the second explosion is the notable one and it is a common name. KRtau16 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The news and the article exists because of the second explosion. If we were to include the first explosion because it "caused the big one", we might as well name the whole thing "2020 Beirut mishandling of cargo, insecure welding, fireworks go boom, small explosion, and the big one". Reasons clearly do not matter in a title, and the first explosion was just a reason, not why the article is important. Harzem (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Why no closure yet? OK, there isn't 100% consensus, but I doubt any new points will be made now as it's been over a week.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the historic event here is the second explosion. The first is basically just backstory for the second. The current title just seems pedantic and misleading. ciphergoth (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because reasons. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:04, 16 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.
  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/lebanon-eyes-state-emergency-deadly-beirut-blast-live-200804234925493.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Beirut_explosion/Archive_2&oldid=1136475976"