Talk:2010 South Kivu fuel tank explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original reporting[edit]

This article is in need of original reporting if possible. The cooperate mass media coverage is not enough. --Thomaskh (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is about references. All wikipedia articles need some references. - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled "Corporate", not "Cooperate", Thomaskh. Dictionaries: They're not just for propping the door open anymore. Get one today! (insert smiley face here) Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do but that´s no reason for you to remove the content. --Thomaskh (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Simion Eugen said, Wikipedia does not welcome original reporting. Trying Wikinews:Main Page instead who will. Removing original reporting in wikipedia would indeed be normal and acceptable practice (no comment on the specific removal here since I haven't seen it). Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we can't have "encyclopedic articles" 10 minutes after an event occurs. There's no objectivism whatsoever, and most of the time, there are errors in the reporting. Case in point - got a "breaking news" item on the TV during World Cup, where it said a schooner was taking on water. Through the course of the game, the name of the boat changed three times, and in the end it turned out that it was a tour boat that had run aground. So maybe we need to wait a bit with current events until things are known for certain instead of turning an encyclopedia into a news source that is constantly changed due to inaccuracy? MSJapan (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article is corrected as new information comes in I see no reason not to report on events that is occurring or unfolding. It should be made clear that an article is uncertain though. Original research should be kept off Wikipedia. -- Henriok (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It should be made clear that an article is uncertain though" - yes, that can normally done merely by citing the source in the sentence (ex: CNN reports that...; BBC, citing local authorities, said...; etc.). Joshdboz (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing vs Taking[edit]

Using the word 'steal' in reporting on this tragedy shows remarkable coarseness. Survivors of the accident lost family members and friends, and would certainly not welcome the implication that the victims got no more than they deserved. One might as well describe the US Forces fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan of being no more than thugs in uniform who deserved to die. WP regards NPOV as being very important and most media try to follow the same guidelines of propriety. Androstachys (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in this instance that taking is the proper term - it sounds better. However, I disagree that taking into account the feelings of those effected (affected?) and skirting around the facts should be a guiding principle of an encyclopedia.--70.104.22.63 (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a pejorative word like 'steal' is used and there is no reference backing such an idea, then I think it's time for a heads-up of the editors involved and for them to cease idly speculating and indulging in creative libel. When it comes to commenting about living people WP feels that one should be VERY careful - see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies:

* Neutral point of view (NPOV)
* Verifiability (V)
* No original research (NOR)" Androstachys (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! Toa Nidhiki05 said it best-"Steal - Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. They were STEALING, not 'collecting'" This is not the first such incident, throngs of good Samaritans don't just appear to take your gas for you and give it back later. Your whitewashing of thievery speaks volumes of you. They are thieves and nothing better. Please, go ahead and accuse me of bad faith, I call bullshit.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
READ the WP guidelines and I'm glad you call bullshit because there certainly is a lot lying around. Androstachys (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive choice of verb, appropriate for you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that either "Salvage" (for themselves) or "Steal" is more appropriate. it was mentioned in one of the references that I put up there.[1] In fact, there have been regular instances of explosions of people tapping into the various PIPELINES so they can steal fuel with a significant number of losses. Tragic, yes. coarse, yes. Our duty as editors isn't to varnish the truth to spare feelings, but to state it as it is where appropriate.

The article you cite seems to be confused about the difference between oil tankers and fuel tankers - perhaps they're equally confused about stealing and taking. I haven't seen our duty spelled out in the pages of WP - please share the location. Androstachys (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so Xinhua, which is a reliable source, is wrong, and a noob who's been here since December (no offense to any other editors, just you) knows better than they do. Uh-huh. Anyway we have it in media now, so the point is noob, uh, moot.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo is absolutely correct here. They were not 'taking' or 'collecting'; they were stealing. In fact, if they had not been stealing and had the common sense not to smoke near gas, none of this would have happened. Was it a tragedy? Yes. Is the incredible loss of life sad? Yes. Does that mean the facts should not be stated? No. I doubt the people that were stealing gas were not bad people, but it is important to post facts here, and the fact is, they were stealing. Oil does not magically become public property when the vehicle it was traveling in flips over. Toa Nidhiki05 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua seems to have confused you too! I think it was a petrol/gasoline tanker which overturned, not oil which would not normally explode because of smoking in the vicinity. The legal niceties about ownership of gasoline or oil which has spilled from a tanker is something which you should pursue, and in case you missed the point let me repeat it: The main issue is about sensitivity and not just idiotic trumpeting about publishing the facts. Androstachys (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has Wikipedia been 'The sensitive Encyclopedia that anyone can edit'? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is, in essence, a collection of facts, not sensitivity. If you want to create a 'sensitive' encyclopedia, make your own Wiki. fail to see how 'theft' is no longer theft if an explosion happens subsequent to, during, or as a result of the theft. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"looting" might be appropriate as well. It WAS a crime of opportunity. --Hourick (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loot - Steal goods (from a place), typically during a war or riot. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, or "to despoil by taking loot; plunder or pillage (a city, house, etc.)" In which to paraphrase, to acquire (steal) goods because of someone else's misfortune. "Salvage" isn't quite appropriate since it is "the value or proceeds upon sale of goods recovered from a fire/accident." Stealing is basically, "to commit or practice theft." Either of these definitions are true. Even going to wiktionary will basically give the same definitions. All we're doing is just splitting hairs, but let's do it properly.--Hourick (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion reported at ANI Androstachys (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of dictionary definitions of theft, but since no-one has been charged with theft it seems a bit hasty for Wikipedia to convict them. There are 10 references on the article - one doesn't load, 3 say "steal", 3 say "collect" or "gather", and 3 say nothing. Of the 3 that say "steal" two are directly quoting the same official. He might be confident in saying the dead were thieves, but the press do not seem to share his confidence. Weakopedia (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the safety aspects - oil derived fuels tend to evaporate in air, and the higher the temperature the faster they evaporate. If the fuel wasn't collected it might well have either evaporated into the air or leached into the surrounding area anyway making attempts to collect it more understandable. Exxolon (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt these people knew that. Using the word 'theft' is not Wikipedia convicting, it is stating the fact. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt these people knew that" - why wouldn't they have known that? Exxolon (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Loot" can also be used as a disaster or accident. A bunch of frozen turkeys were spilled onto a highway from an 18 wheeler accident and people carried them off, it is "looting". I have heard it referred to as "looting" by several news organizations (Dallas 5 yrs ago?), it was then mentioned at the turkeys would have to be destroyed for sanitary reasons. I say again, that "Looting" or "Stealing" are proper choices for this article. --Hourick (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've simply inserted a direct quote from the source [2] (though I note it's been reverted). –xenotalk 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing, and I have reverted back to your version. Here's what I think: I think they were stealing the oil. I think they were looting. I think their actions were likely illegal. But I also think that it is not up to me, or Wikipedians, to make that judgment. Follow the sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add: up above it is claimed that some sources say that an official is quoted as saying "stealing". It would be fine to quote that official, to quote those sources, assuming they are WP:RS.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that using any direct quote from a reliable source would be fine. –xenotalk 15:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "attempted to collect the oil" what was agreed upon as a consensus during my absence?--Hourick (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears so - it's a direct quote from a reliable source. Exxolon (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll leave it alone then. One thing I would like to know and I'll leave the topic alone: Was the fuel actually leaking from the tanker, or did they puncture or open it to access it? That is also a slight difference in it. If it was punctured, then I'll totally accept it. However if they had to open a valve to get to the contents, then that's a totally different story. --Hourick (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recall whether or not the tanker was already leaking fuel after the accident or not is not mentioned in any of the sources - feel free to check them. If you find a definitive source one way or the other then we can re-evaluate this. Exxolon (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the CNN source [3], it mentions that the fuel was already "Spilling" from tanker when it had its accident. It's at this point where "collect" would be proper, as long as it was mentioned that the tanker was already compromised by the accident and not by the locals, when this happened. --Hourick (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That ties into my query below about the fuel type. Gasoline for example is very volatile and quickly evaporates in hot weather - this would make attempting to collect it more understandable (leaving aside the safety considerations) if it was only going to be lost to evaporation. Exxolon (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that a slight reword was needed. The fuel was already spilling from the truck and it was going to be "spoiled" or at a loss as it was. To steal to me was that they were actually opening up valves to access the oil, but in this case it was simply flowing out of the tanker and it would have been a loss anyway. So there. --Hourick (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Type[edit]

Do we know what type of fuel the tanker was carrying? We have sources saying "Oil Tanker", "Fuel", "Oil", "Gasoline" and "Fuel Oil". Exxolon (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Link on the main page. This is textbook WP:NOT#NEWS, with zero historical or lasting impact, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to make that determination mere days after it happened. Who knows, maybe this will lead to new UN resolutions on the transport of hazardous materials. Until then, it's being covered in international news, so it's most certainly relevant. N419BH 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD closed as Speedy Keep as this article is currently an "In the News" link from the front page. Exxolon (talk)

Page title[edit]

I've moved the page because "tank truck" is not even remotely a recognised term in Tanzania. Example Google hits for .tz domains:

"Tank truck" = 5
"Tanker" (-ship) = 270

As can be seen, the leading returns are actual local reports of this particular incident. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I haven't seen any wp:RS use the name "Catastrophe of Sange" to refer to this incident. I propose that this article be moved back to 2010 South Kivu fuel tank explosion, which currently is a redirect here. 150.251.3.1 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@150.251.3.1:, the move has been made. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 22:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_South_Kivu_fuel_tank_explosion&oldid=1196573968"