![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As horrific as this tragedy is, does it meet the criteria for inclusion? South Africa is routinely beset by terrible tragedies. In September 2022, a vehicle carrying young school children was crushed by a truck, killing 21 people [1]. That incident also received widespread international coverage, but because it was in a rural area, it may not have had the social media impact that this explosion did and it isn’t covered on Wikipedia.
I don’t think this article should be deleted, but if, after some months, it’s found that it doesn’t meet the criteria for WP:EVENT then consideration should be given to removing it. Ultimately I suspect it will have very little lasting impact (even on obvious things like hazardous materials transport regulations and bystander management by emergency services) and there won’t be any kind of meaningful analysis or long-term in-depth coverage. Park3r ( talk) 03:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:EVENT, “Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.”
At this point it’s too early to tell if the article meets those criteria.
Should there be enduring coverage: in-depth interviews; an investigation into the failure to secure a perimeter around the tanker, into the training and resourcing of the emergency services, into the transport of hazardous materials. Into the warning signs, or lack thereof that allowed the truck to be lodged under the bridge? Yes. Will that actually happen? That’s an open question. Park3r ( talk) 12:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
When I raised the above point, the death toll was considerably lower. I would probably say that the number of deaths is significant enough to merit an article. Unfortunately it looks like my concern about enduring significance remains valid. Park3r ( talk) 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The article uses an early report as a source for the statement that many patients and staff inside the ED were severely burned, but later reports indicate that the damage to the ED was limited [2]. Park3r ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I’ve started clearly attributing statements derived from involved parties. They may well be accurate, however they need to be clearly attributed. Park3r ( talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest a separate subsection section making it clear that it was the company's internal investigation that is being quoted. It is stated as fact when it makes allegations to deflect. This investigation's veracity and objectivity has not been disclosed. Stochos ( talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
According to this source [3] the line was shut down in 2020 because of cable theft, and some of the sources state that it was on a list for rehabilitation. If the line wasn’t operational then the article should be updated, since the explosion wouldn’t have disrupted services. Park3r ( talk) 09:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Checking on Google now, it seems "Boksburg tanker explosion" (entered with quotation marks to narrow it down only to webpages containing that exact phrase) brings up 144 000 results, while "Boksburg blast" brings up 184 000 and "Boksburg explosion" brings up 282 000 results. Disastrous explosions of any sort are not a common occurrence in South Africa (above ground at least, mining accidents are presumably more common), and to the best of my knowledge, no notable explosions have happened in Boksburg except this one.
Of course, I understand this event was very recent, and in light of that, the sheer number of results on Google suggests many may not be relevant to this article's topic. ENEvery ( talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
According to early reports, 19 people were critically injured in the explosion. Yet, since then, far more than 19 people have died of their injuries. By definition, non-critical injuries rarely if ever result in death, so it seems the early reports were mistaken and the number should be higher. Yet, I can find absolutely no updates on this particular detail. After numerous early reports said 19 were critically injured, no journalists seem to have questioned the accuracy of that statement, and no one since has provided any updates, that I'm aware of.
I'm not sure what to do about this; simply calculating a new number based on the number who have since died would contradict the sources, violate WP:OR and there wouldn't even be any guarantee of accuracy. ENEvery ( talk) 12:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Although we need to mindful of WP:OR we also need to mindful of the quality of our sources. Google Street View, which is the source of the Citizen claim that the sign was illegible, shows that this was indeed the case, but only in one direction of travel. It appears to be legible in the other direction (which happens to be from the general direction of the N17).
Wikipedia should reflect what’s found in WP:RS but it shouldn’t perpetuate inaccurate or dubious claims either. (We also need to more broadly evaluate what sources currently qualify as WP:RS in South Africa but that’s a different discussion). Park3r ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that’s what I thought. Do you have any insight into the route taken by the truck? The only sources I can find that aren’t in the article repeat the claim that he got onto the N17 from a rest stop [4]. What was the rest stop, and what route was he supposed to take? Park3r ( talk) 21:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This article repeats claims that the truck driver was qualified at “working at heights”. Unless I’m missing something, this seems to be irrelevant. Park3r ( talk) 00:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The lede contains speculation made soon after the accident from a minor political party (GOOD) and also seems to give undue weight to the internal investigation, and to the signage, which may or may not be relevant. The EFF is also a small party, and their viewpoint blaming the tanker company shouldn’t be given WP:UNDUE weight. I notice that the major political parties (ANC and DA) haven’t indulged in speculation and in the absence of an official investigation, it might be best to remove that sentence, and put the references into the Investigation section. Park3r ( talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The GOOD and EFF reactions were already covered, so I consolidated and moved them. Park3r ( talk) 22:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the company that owns the truck hired an “independent auditor” which has “cleared it”. [ https://www.news24.com/amp/news24/southafrica/news/boksburg-tanker-blast-independent-auditing-company-clears-trucking-company-of-wrongdoing-20230107] The same article quotes a report from the municipality that states that the sign was legible and affixed to the bridge in December 2022.
UPDATE: I found a source (an article from The Star hosted on IOL) that made an attempt at journalistic scepticism, so I added this report to the article. The other sources seem to have regurgitated the report findings uncritically. [5] It looks like the original eNCA interviewer tried to get some answers, but didn’t nail down many specifics [6] Park3r ( talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Have there been any significant developments or updates? I haven't been able to find much via Google News. Has it been memory-holed? Park3r ( talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't find any meaningful updates in the news. Has there been any movement? Park3r ( talk) 03:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As horrific as this tragedy is, does it meet the criteria for inclusion? South Africa is routinely beset by terrible tragedies. In September 2022, a vehicle carrying young school children was crushed by a truck, killing 21 people [1]. That incident also received widespread international coverage, but because it was in a rural area, it may not have had the social media impact that this explosion did and it isn’t covered on Wikipedia.
I don’t think this article should be deleted, but if, after some months, it’s found that it doesn’t meet the criteria for WP:EVENT then consideration should be given to removing it. Ultimately I suspect it will have very little lasting impact (even on obvious things like hazardous materials transport regulations and bystander management by emergency services) and there won’t be any kind of meaningful analysis or long-term in-depth coverage. Park3r ( talk) 03:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:EVENT, “Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.”
At this point it’s too early to tell if the article meets those criteria.
Should there be enduring coverage: in-depth interviews; an investigation into the failure to secure a perimeter around the tanker, into the training and resourcing of the emergency services, into the transport of hazardous materials. Into the warning signs, or lack thereof that allowed the truck to be lodged under the bridge? Yes. Will that actually happen? That’s an open question. Park3r ( talk) 12:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
When I raised the above point, the death toll was considerably lower. I would probably say that the number of deaths is significant enough to merit an article. Unfortunately it looks like my concern about enduring significance remains valid. Park3r ( talk) 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The article uses an early report as a source for the statement that many patients and staff inside the ED were severely burned, but later reports indicate that the damage to the ED was limited [2]. Park3r ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I’ve started clearly attributing statements derived from involved parties. They may well be accurate, however they need to be clearly attributed. Park3r ( talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest a separate subsection section making it clear that it was the company's internal investigation that is being quoted. It is stated as fact when it makes allegations to deflect. This investigation's veracity and objectivity has not been disclosed. Stochos ( talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
According to this source [3] the line was shut down in 2020 because of cable theft, and some of the sources state that it was on a list for rehabilitation. If the line wasn’t operational then the article should be updated, since the explosion wouldn’t have disrupted services. Park3r ( talk) 09:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Checking on Google now, it seems "Boksburg tanker explosion" (entered with quotation marks to narrow it down only to webpages containing that exact phrase) brings up 144 000 results, while "Boksburg blast" brings up 184 000 and "Boksburg explosion" brings up 282 000 results. Disastrous explosions of any sort are not a common occurrence in South Africa (above ground at least, mining accidents are presumably more common), and to the best of my knowledge, no notable explosions have happened in Boksburg except this one.
Of course, I understand this event was very recent, and in light of that, the sheer number of results on Google suggests many may not be relevant to this article's topic. ENEvery ( talk) 10:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
According to early reports, 19 people were critically injured in the explosion. Yet, since then, far more than 19 people have died of their injuries. By definition, non-critical injuries rarely if ever result in death, so it seems the early reports were mistaken and the number should be higher. Yet, I can find absolutely no updates on this particular detail. After numerous early reports said 19 were critically injured, no journalists seem to have questioned the accuracy of that statement, and no one since has provided any updates, that I'm aware of.
I'm not sure what to do about this; simply calculating a new number based on the number who have since died would contradict the sources, violate WP:OR and there wouldn't even be any guarantee of accuracy. ENEvery ( talk) 12:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Although we need to mindful of WP:OR we also need to mindful of the quality of our sources. Google Street View, which is the source of the Citizen claim that the sign was illegible, shows that this was indeed the case, but only in one direction of travel. It appears to be legible in the other direction (which happens to be from the general direction of the N17).
Wikipedia should reflect what’s found in WP:RS but it shouldn’t perpetuate inaccurate or dubious claims either. (We also need to more broadly evaluate what sources currently qualify as WP:RS in South Africa but that’s a different discussion). Park3r ( talk) 22:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that’s what I thought. Do you have any insight into the route taken by the truck? The only sources I can find that aren’t in the article repeat the claim that he got onto the N17 from a rest stop [4]. What was the rest stop, and what route was he supposed to take? Park3r ( talk) 21:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This article repeats claims that the truck driver was qualified at “working at heights”. Unless I’m missing something, this seems to be irrelevant. Park3r ( talk) 00:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The lede contains speculation made soon after the accident from a minor political party (GOOD) and also seems to give undue weight to the internal investigation, and to the signage, which may or may not be relevant. The EFF is also a small party, and their viewpoint blaming the tanker company shouldn’t be given WP:UNDUE weight. I notice that the major political parties (ANC and DA) haven’t indulged in speculation and in the absence of an official investigation, it might be best to remove that sentence, and put the references into the Investigation section. Park3r ( talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The GOOD and EFF reactions were already covered, so I consolidated and moved them. Park3r ( talk) 22:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks like the company that owns the truck hired an “independent auditor” which has “cleared it”. [ https://www.news24.com/amp/news24/southafrica/news/boksburg-tanker-blast-independent-auditing-company-clears-trucking-company-of-wrongdoing-20230107] The same article quotes a report from the municipality that states that the sign was legible and affixed to the bridge in December 2022.
UPDATE: I found a source (an article from The Star hosted on IOL) that made an attempt at journalistic scepticism, so I added this report to the article. The other sources seem to have regurgitated the report findings uncritically. [5] It looks like the original eNCA interviewer tried to get some answers, but didn’t nail down many specifics [6] Park3r ( talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Have there been any significant developments or updates? I haven't been able to find much via Google News. Has it been memory-holed? Park3r ( talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't find any meaningful updates in the news. Has there been any movement? Park3r ( talk) 03:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)