Talk:Ghost Ship warehouse fire

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KP Botany (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 8 December 2016 (→Quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:16, 8 December 2016 by KP Botany (talk | contribs) (→Quote)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Firefighting

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A news item involving Ghost Ship warehouse fire was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 December 2016.

Misplaced Pages

Merge duplicate page?

I started another page on this fire because I could not find an article on it when I searched. I'm happy to merge the content from that article into this one. Funcrunch (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Content merged and page redirected. Funcrunch (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Oakland Ghost Ship fire?

I think we should rename this to Oakland Ghost Ship fire. If you look at the List of nightclub fires, most of them are named in the same format - the venue name is prominent, sometimes prefixed with the city name. The year 2016 doesn't need to be there to ensure a unique title. --Clorox (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That was what I named my article before I found this page, but I redirected it here, per the section above. The other fires listed in the "Nightclub fires and disasters" template currently on this page all seem to start with the year, though the Ghost Ship was not actually a night club... Funcrunch (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking again at that template, I now see that the year is not actually part of the article title for most of the articles. Funcrunch (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Check it out, news outlets are already referring to it as the Oakland Ghost Ship fire: --Clorox (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The majority of the sources I'm seeing (including the one you linked to) are referring to "warehouse" in the headline. I think as long as the various Ghost Ship redirects are in place, people won't have trouble finding this article. Funcrunch (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the best title would be 2016 Oakland artists warehouse fire. I think that is the substantial information. I don't think (disclaimer: WP:CRYSTAL) "Ghost Ship" will edge out that basic information with the passage of time. I think the word "artists" should be included in the title because that single word identifies this tragedy uniquely among similar major fires. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Support rename to Oakland Ghost Ship fire, similar to Triangle shirtwaist fire. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nightclub fire?

The Club fires template has been added and removed here a couple of times. The Ghost Ship was hosting a concert the night of the fire, but it was not a nightclub, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to include in that list. Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how literally you want to interpret "nightclub". For what it's worth, I noticed that, if you search for the article List of concert fires, you get re-directed to List of nightclub fires. Seems to me that it would be okay to include this on the list, so long as there's a note that clarifies the normal use of the warehouse. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I should have checked the list article more carefully. Someone has already done what I had suggested. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing

The number of deaths listed keeps going up, yet the missing number on the infobox keeps staying at 35. That can't be right. We need either a corrected total, or it should just be removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - at this point, with 36 confirmed dead, I've seen no official updates to the number missing. So I've just removed it from the infobox and updated the article to say "a number of others" are (still) missing. Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fire Truck vs. Fire Engine

For the sentence "The effort involved 11 fire engines and three fire trucks" it would be preferable if we could link internally to definitions of the two. Bus stop (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is somewhat interesting, but "fire truck" on Misplaced Pages currently redirects to "fire engine", so we can't easily distinguish that way. Maybe by putting in a footnote, but I don't think it's that important to the article as it stands... Funcrunch (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The author of this article of explanation concludes by saying "Having worked with both an engine company and a truck company, the differences blur a bit in a situation where the sky is red, the smoke is thick and the water is streaming." I just find that our sentence distinguishing between the two asks the logical question as to what the difference is. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering about the distinction myself when I added the information to the article. I just wikilinked both "fire engines" and "fire trucks" so people can read up on it for themselves, though someone might remove the link since it's a pretty common word/phrase. Funcrunch (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a good provisional approach. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fire truck is a redirect to Fire engine, which says the terms have different meaning in North America, but does not appear to explain the differences, so this is just a frustrating and pointless unexplained distinction, an all-too-common Misplaced Pages result. It is useful to check wikilinks when providing them. The trucks were ladder trucks. But this article doesn't give the information, and then taking me twice to the same article that also doesn't give the information doesn't help. --KP Botany (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In my initial reply above I did, in fact, note that both wikilinks went to the same article (with fire truck redirecting to fire engine). If you still think it's a pointless exercise feel free to remove the links... Funcrunch (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I think what is notable is that over a dozen "fire vehicles" (whether trucks or engines) responded to the blaze. If someone wants to phrase it better than what's currently written, feel free... Funcrunch (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Combined, the distinction is nerdy minutiae. WWGB (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oakland Ghost Ship web page with images

Assuming these are actual photos of the space the fire took place in the article would be easier to understand if it included some of them. I don't know if wikicommons will accept them, there is no copyright I could see on the page. I don't know the procedure for fair use pictures.

http://www.oaklandghostship.com/

Geo8rge (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Fair use" is not allowed on Commons, and none of these photos would likely fall under that exception anyway. The photos would need to be released under a Commons-acceptable license. Funcrunch (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times source

Can someone tell me what this Los Angeles Times source provides that the Mercury News does not? Because this is otherwise a very pointless citation and the Mercury News citation is enough support for a launched investigation. Parsley Man (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving the additional source at this time because it is another good quality source and this is still very early in this article's development and very early in the investigation being noted but I totally object to the name-calling edit summary left with the addition of that source. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

+1 to Bus stop's reply. Funcrunch (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. In my opinion, unless Los Angeles Times provides something about the investigation that Mercury News doesn't, I just don't see the point in another citation. Parsley Man (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

When I read a statement in a Wiki article that I want to either verify or simply research further, I first look at what source(s) are provided. Then I choose one that seems promising for what I am looking for. As I said, it may be for verification purposes, but it could also be for further research purposes. Perhaps I have a preference for one source over another. Having two sources gives me options. I think you are taking a cut-and-dry approach, when an open-ended approach may be preferable. We don't know what the reader is looking for. The article itself serves as an outline of a topic, in a certain sense. Wiki is not the only place a reader looks. Thus we should write as if our article is a jumping-off point for further research. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just me maybe but I look for at least three independent sources (not A repeating B repeating original source C, but independent journalism). Links go dead, sometimes websites are reorganized for archive and the article is there but moved, sometimes old news articles get deleted. More than one source is good with me and I suspect others. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote

"It appears people either made it out, or they didn't"

Is this necessary? That seems to cover all possibilities. What else could happen beside someone making it out or not? Natureium (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't seem necessary in my book. To me, it just states the obvious. Either people died or survived. Of course we all know that. Parsley Man (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the quote should be left in. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What he was trying to say was that people either escaped from the building or died on the spot (not later at the hospital from injuries). Rescuers couldn't get into the burning building to save anyone, especially on the second floor. The phrasing is somewhat awkward, but it was poignant enough to make it as a headline for the sourced article; I think it should stay. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Those words have a colloquial sound to them, they are the actual words of an official, and the quote acknowledges a grim reality of this tragedy—that few injuries resulted but a lot of deaths. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the quote is worthwhile. Keep it in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the language as some people made it out on their own, those who didn't make it out died before any responders arrived to attempt rescue. Usually there are three sets of victims: those who escape, those who are rescued, and those who are lost. Those who didn't escape before rescue arrived died. The quote implies a swift disaster. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a longer version of the quote which confirmed that it referred to very few people being injured versus flat-out dead or alive. Maybe that could be found if needed. --KP Botany (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Photos of the fire now available

I requested pix from a Flickr user and she agreed to upload them to Commons; I've added them to the category for the fire. One of them should probably replace the current infobox picture, but I wanted to get input here before doing that. Funcrunch (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I chose one for now, but if anyone thinks one of the others would be a better choice feel free to swap of course. Funcrunch (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed to another one that I believe better illustrates the topic, but I am interested in hearing other opinions. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Number of survivors?

Is there a number of survivors published? Not a list, just a number, since the number of injured stays at 2 but it doesn't give a full picture of the number of people who were in the building at the time of the fire and made it out alive. 2620:101:F000:700:1C15:707F:ECD2:8F65 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any published source that gives a firm number of people in the building at the time the fire began. Early articles speculated that it was between 50 and 100 people, which would give a wide range of 14 to 64 survivors. But given that the building was hosting an unpermitted concert/party and people were living there contrary to local laws, it is unlikely that an accurate count of those who fled can ever be produced. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

List of victims

At some point we should include a complete list of victims, here are some sources though I'm not sure yet if all 36 are included:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/oakland-fire-victims.html?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/us/oakland-fire-victims/

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/05/oakland-fire-victims-list-of-those-killed-in-the-ghost-ship-blaze/

— TAnthony 20:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about removal of content

How is this relevant?

A number of victims were thought or known to have been from the LGBTQ+ community. The families and friends of the transgender victims—which included at least three trans women—have requested that media sources identify them by their chosen names and pronouns, and not those given at birth.

articles should be to the point.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.134.235 (talk • contribs)

It's relevant to the article because a number of reliable sources have reported on it, including NBC News, The Guardian, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Funcrunch (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not really notable enough for inclusion in the article. See WP:NOTNEWS and Misplaced Pages:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria

Though tragic, it doesn't really have any historical significance.

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 04:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not notable that a disproportionate number of the victims were from a particular marginalized community? --Clorox (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but nowhere does it say a disproportional number, it just says "a number". The families' wishes are also not really notable either. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 04:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Even three out of 36 victims being trans (which is stated in the second sentence) is a significant number, given that we comprise probably only about 1% of the population. And that's just the T part of the LGBT+. But again, I based the inclusion on the fact that several mainstream media sources devoted articles to this subject. Funcrunch (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've pinged the LGBT Studies WikiProject on this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry, if you want more people in the discussion, use https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment instead, also, take a look at wp:3rr. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 04:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the relevant Misplaced Pages policies here. Pinging LGBT studies is not canvassing; there is plenty of disagreement amongst people in that WikiProject. They definitely are not all "people who agree with me", on any issue, believe me. Funcrunch (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is no more worth mentioning than would be the fact that, say, 40% of the victims are black, even though that's three times the US average (though not Oakland's average, of course, which is a point which comes into play here as well). If they were there because they were refused housing elsewhere yada yada yada, that might be different.

Notifying the WikiProject was not canvassing. I've removed Gamebuster19901's inappropriate and overbearing duplication here of the boxed summary from WP:MEAT. E Eng 05:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Funcrunch, the 3RR violation combined with the ping didn't make that seem very likely, especially when there were other options. But back on topic: Just because the media reports on something, doesn't make it notable. We don't really write anything about the wishes of families either.Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 05:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How did I violate 3RR? I reverted the IPs unexplained removal of the whole paragraph once, I reverted your removal of a single phrase from the paragraph once, and then I edited the phrase to change and clarify the language of it when another person reverted my edit. Regardless, I've explained my position on the issue, and will defer to consensus if enough others disagree with the inclusion. Funcrunch (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction: On reviewing the history, I see that my initial revert was of the removal of a single phrase, not the entire sentence (which the IP removed later and another editor reverted). Regardless, it appears to be the inclusion of the paragraph as a whole that's of issue here, not the single phrase about names and pronouns at birth. Funcrunch (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The notability guideline (linked earlier in this discussion) is generally taken to deal with whether there should be an article, not what should be in an article. I do think it's noteworthy to mention that there were transgender victims. That fact has received significant attention in various reliable sources and almost certainly will continue to do so, and that should be good enough for our purposes. I'm not quite sure about the last part, though: "have requested that media sources identify them by their chosen names and pronouns, and not by the names and genders they were assigned at birth". It occurs to me that the noteworthy bit here might not the request per se but rather what prompted it (see Guardian and SFGate articles and others). Rivertorch_WATER 06:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that this should remain in the article. The reader is interested to know sociological factors. I would definitely leave all that information in. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would you say the reader is interested to know sociological factors? You can't know what information someone is looking for. I didn't come here looking for sociological factors, but information about the building. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch. It is probably unnecessary to mention the families' wishes re: names and pronouns, which is par for the course for supporters of trans people, but if reliable sources take particular note of the victims' sexuality or gender identity, we should add some mention to that effect as well, since we follow RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point Rivertorch. I've edited the sentence to reframe the issue as concern about misgendering that has already occurred. This phrasing also avoids the language about names and pronouns being given/assigned at birth which others have had issues with. Funcrunch (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It is an issue and a factor that pertains to this event. It would represent a contrivance on our part to excise factors that pertain to this incident but that we in our personal opinion feel are not relevant. Our article should reflect the issues and the factors expounded upon by good quality sources in relation to this event.

Instead of grieving for her friends, Scout Wolfcave has spent the last two days phoning news reporters and begging them not to disrespect the transgender women who died by calling them “men” in their reports and refusing to use their proper names.

Wolfcave acknowledged that it was difficult to speak with reporters while still in mourning, but she also noted she wanted coverage to be accurate and was concerned with trans women being misgendered or "deadnamed" by the media (deadnaming is when the birth name of a transgender person is used instead of their preferred name).

But already a flurry of media reports had picked up the information and repeated her birth name and pronoun. “Many times I had conversations with her about how her greatest fear in death was being misrepresented for her true self,” Wicks-Frank said. “It’s about dignity in death.”

There are cultural factors that we can provide, if supported by reliable sources, which can help the reader to understand the particular community that was affected by this fire. The above factors are by no means all-inclusive. But this only means that information relating to other sub-groups within this community should be added to the article—if reliably sourced. Subtracting relevant information doesn't make sense to me. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Btphelps, perhaps not noticing that we are actively discussing this issue on this talk page, has removed the paragraph. I'm not sure there was consensus for this action. Funcrunch (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than in this event article, I wonder if that content mighn't be better suited for whatever place we talk about deadnaming or misgendering. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories: