While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
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
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
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
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
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
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
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk19:38, 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...)☆☆☆—PietadèTalk20:09, 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.)
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk20:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)reply
"flocked"
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
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.
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
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
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.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
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
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
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
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
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
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
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk19:38, 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...)☆☆☆—PietadèTalk20:09, 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.)
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk20:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)reply
"flocked"
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
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.
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
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
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.