Talk:Freetown fuel tanker explosion

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

Oil tanker or fuel truck?[edit]

We need to settle on a name for the vehicle. I used "oil tanker" originally because that's what BBC was calling it but it can be discussed. Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer "oil tanker" and, in general, British English should be preferred for a country which used to be a British colony before gaining independence 60 years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do is find out what name is used in local media outlets. I'm guessing it's "oil tanker". Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An oil tanker is a ship to me. Perhaps "oil tanker truck"? --PFHLai (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth on the Sierra Leone Telegraph (original article, not wire) it's a fuel tanker. The word tanker appears 11 times on the page, including title. No matches for "truck", even when isolated from other words. [1] All articles about English-speaking countries should be written according to the local norms. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case fuel tanker would be the best term. Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oil tanker is the term used locally, so it should be oil tanker. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, would be more than content with the current name "fuel tanker" as even Amurican sources use that term, so that should appease the masses. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BBC seems to use both. Oil tanker in the title and fuel tanker in the text. Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but fuel tanker is more prevalent, and even features in American sources like CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. Forbes and NBC use "oil tanker". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With both oil tanker and fuel tanker, the first thing I think about is a ship. Fuel truck is much more clear. We should prioritise having unambiguous content over mindlessly copying sources.Tvx1 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might be the first thing you think of, but it's not the case that's what the vast majority of reliable sources think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? We need to write articles that are primarly clear to understand to our readers, not mindlessly copy sources. This obesession to match sources exactly to the letter is idiotic.Tvx1 23:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's idiotic is to change everything because Tvx1 prefers a different turn of phrase. Get over it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the current use of "fuel tanker" as that is what is generally being reported. In addition, the language used in an article should match WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH and given the place where this occurred, the language and terms used in the article are appropriate. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we are not obliged to mindlessy copy sources. And American vs British has nothing to do with it. This is simply ambiguousness of plain English. Even our own article on Fuel/Oil tanker deals with ships. Our article on the vehicle type that exploded is called Tanker truck. The term used here is not appropriate.Tvx1 21:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It's called a "tanker truck" where you come from. It's called a "fuel tanker" where I come from. And it's called an "oil tanker" in the local sources too. Move on. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion[edit]

The tanker \ tanker itself didn't explode (can be used again, in current "green"conversion), yet the content did catch the fire, at some point, resulting "fireballs", whatever that means, did what they did...; so, the title is a bit incorrect (both vehicles are still (17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)) on the scene), though, no ideas here, for now.
Use of ‘explosion’ appears not to be correct.☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
U-turn accident, disatrous collision..., anyway, tomorrow or the day after, we shall have new thoughts on this.☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC video on YT which you link to says in its description that the tanker exploded. It's one of many RS which use explosion/exploded. When a vehicle explodes, it's common for its frame to remain in one piece, as the rest of it is destroyed or badly damaged. Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time BBC reports (at least orally, on screen) people, who were collecting the spilled fuel... explosion(s) (accompanied by “fireballs”) occurred later☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any source saying there wasn't an explosion. Do you think explosion in the title should be changed to disaster? Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Takes some time to ‘digest’, anyway, “explosion” brings in mind some kind of terrorist activity; ‘cause, human stupidity can be too labelled as terrorism (free petrol on streets, come together now,... and, die...) ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 20:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many explosions are accidental. Our articles about deliberate explosions usually have bombing or attack in their titles rather than explosion. Jim Michael (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it took some time before the “collisionally” freed fuel started acting in its normal way (fireballs (have heard, yet not sure what that means), burning, killing, etc.) ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 20:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"flocked"[edit]

Hassanjalloh1, rather than continuing some slow burn edit war with several other editors, perhaps a discussion to come to a consensus would be a better course. "Flocked" is not formal language, and WP:TONE is something you should bear in mind when writing articles. We are not writing for a newspaper, and journalistic language is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia - that's what WP:TONE is all about]]. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:51E8:A4CB:897B:BA3E (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "flocked" is not a formal word then why reputable media sources like Reuters are using it? Read this article from Reuters that I cited. The thing is, "gathered" doesn't faithfully describe what happened. I believe WP is not supposed to be political. When the two drivers exited their vehicles respectively, they warned people who were gathering near the scene to go away from the scene as fuel was leaking from the tanker. However, they started rushing - otherwise flocked - to collect the fuel before anything else could happen. So you won't call that "gathered". Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters are using it because they are journalists and they do not write in formal encyclopaedic English. We are supposed to, which is why we use different terminology. The BBC, for example (always more formal than many of the agencies), say "The drivers, noticing a leak, exited their the vehicles and warned people to stay away. The explosion occurred when people tried to collect the fuel, the NDMA said". No rushing, no flocking, just a description that people were on the scene when the explosion happened. The "rushing" and "flocking" is sort of unconnected to the events: how quickly people were trying to gather fuel didn't make the explosion happen, so it's not needed. We cover the fact that there was a collision, that people gathered in numbers to collect fuel and that there was an explosion that killed and injured many. "Flocking" and "rushing" aren't needed and the terms are not encyclopaedic. I'm afraid I do not know why you think this is in any way "political": it isn't, it's about the WP:TONE of writing that we need to use. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:51E8:A4CB:897B:BA3E (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this is what Reuters wrote in the article:
"Victims included people who had flocked to collect fuel leaking from the ruptured vehicle, Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, mayor of the port city, said in a post on Facebook..." I think we need to provide the correct interpretation of what really happened, don't try to "brush it up". I clearly sympathise with all those affected but trying to brush up the truth is definitely not the right move. People learn from mistakes other people make, this is how we grow as a society. It's actually kind of silly that after an accident, petrol leaking from a tanker, the driver came out and say "stay away, there's danger!". And then you'd say "the people gathered there and started collecting the fuel"? No. After they've been warned of the impending danger lurking, they had to rush (flocked) to collect the fuel. However, you could choose an alternative word to flock. You can't simply say gathered. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read what Reuters write. It represents the usual overblown and over-exaggerated writing favoured by some journalists. They write to make things exciting - "purple prose" or "journalistic colour" are two of the synonyms for the overblown writing they practice. I'll refer you again to the BBC coverage, which is far more responsible in its choice of words: "The drivers, noticing a leak, exited their the vehicles and warned people to stay away. The explosion occurred when people tried to collect the fuel, the NDMA said." "Gathered" is a perfectly good word to use. "rushing" and "flocking" is nonsense that shouldn't be in an encyclopaedic article (see, once again, WP:TONE). In five or ten years whether people rushed or flocked will be seen as the most pointless detail in the article. It was the fact that there was a collection or gathering of people collecting petrol that was the key point. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:51E8:A4CB:897B:BA3E (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read the official statment from the City Council's FB page. I have made some changes and removed the "flocked", but you could check it as well. Nevertheless, this is the paragraph from the City Council page:
"In the interim, some community members rushed to the scene and took advantage of the leakage to scoop fuel and store it in nearby makeshift structures. In the cause of scooping the fuel, there was a major explosion that resulted in the fire disaster that occurred." My main point of this argument is, that there is some aspect of human error involved in this disaster, and we shouldn't ignore that in trying to provide a clear picture of what happened. There are people out there who are yet to learn that whenever there is an accident resulting in a fuel leakage people should avoid that particular scene. This has been happening a lot across Africa lately. So when people like you and I volunteer to collect information and present it on WP, our focus should be on information that serves to educate. Saying people just "gathered, and started collecting fuell from the leakage is kind of like making a political statement." Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing what I am trying to say here. I have never even thought of ignoring the fact that human error was involved - quite the reverse. To say people gathered to collect fuel is in no way a "political" statement - I struggle to think how it could even remotely be seen as such. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:51E8:A4CB:897B:BA3E (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the "political statement" thing :). I took it too far. Anyway I was inspired by the belief that there is something people can learn from this, especially as it has been happening in countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, Pakistan etc. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - I was trying to ensure there wasn't anything political in what I was writing. You are entirely right that people need to learn about the dangers of spilt petrol. Sadly poverty drives people to do crazy and dangerous things trying to earn some little money, and tragedies like this are increasingly frequent. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:51E8:A4CB:897B:BA3E (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2021[edit]

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: not moved. Consensus is that the proposed title is too WP:PRECISE. However, there appears to be some support for 2021 Freetown explosion; it might be good to have a new RM that is focused on that title. (non-admin closure) VR talk 20:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown fuel tanker explosion → 2021 Freetown fuel tanker explosion – Date provides historical context and eliminates confusion with the 2007 Freetown explosions. Facts707 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support no downside to having the year on this kind of event. Sadly In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only other notable explosions in Freetown were in 2007. They didn't involve a fuel tanker, so there's no confusion or need to disambiguate further. The downside is pointlessly lengthening an already quite long title. If making the title similar to that of the 2007 article is the aim, this article would be named 2021 Freetown explosion. Jim Michael (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jim Michael. This explosion is sufficiently distinguished by the involvement of a fuel tanker, which is not true with the 2007 explosions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The other Freetown disaster article contains the year in its title. Since one of the main goals of Wikipedia is consistency among articles per WP:MOS, there's good reason why this article's title should also include the year. Whether the other Freetown article was not about a fuel tanker is irrelevant. Truthanado (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If consistency between the 2 titles is important, the 2007 disaster should be renamed Freetown building explosions or the 2021 disaster renamed 2021 Freetown explosion. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support More clarity is never a negative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.66.200 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current title is unambiguous and needs no greater precision. A redirect from the proposed title would do no harm, and address all of the concerns expressed. But I doubt it will be all that useful. Andrewa (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:PRECISE, but could support the suggested "2021 Freetown explosion" if proposed.Davidships (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Others[edit]

Wasn't there one in Eq guinea this year? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate photo?[edit]

Is File:Freetown fuel tanka fire.jpg from a different accident? The tanker explosion occurred in darkness at 10pm local time and I can find no press images of fires still burning the next day. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found it debunked at https://medium.com/wanadata-africa/fact-check-does-this-image-show-a-tanker-explosion-in-sierra-leone-6d04f6c155cf, it's a photo of a 2018 explosion elsewhere that was doing the rounds on Facebook, although this version has been left-to-right flipped at some point before being uploaded to Commons. I'll flag it for deletion there, I hope Wikipedia hasn't been contributing to the misinformation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freetown_fuel_tanker_explosion&oldid=1204141319"