Talk:West Fertilizer Company explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources for local news

Some news sources:

• Waco Tribune-Herald newspaper: http://www.wacotrib.com/
• McLennan County Texas scanner: http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/2663
• KWTX television: http://www.kwtx.com/
• KXXV television: http://www.kxxv.com/
• KCEN television: http://www.kcentv.com
• KWKT television: http://www.kwkt.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Vielmetti (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 April 2013‎ (UTC)

To do later

Once more is known about the casualties, damage, etc., could someone please add that information to the entry for this disaster on the Ammonium nitrate disasters page? Thanks! 70.192.203.200 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I don't have a Wikipedia account, sorry.

You may need to move this to AMMONIA disasters if it was an ammonia tank BLEVE. Pikachudad (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just read a report that there was Ammonium Nitrate stored in a rail car. That would make more sense. Pikachudad (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I felt that this was interesting: apparently the West Independent School District had to evacuate their intermediate school in February due to a "concerning fire" at the plant. http://www.westisd.net/ourpages/auto/2013/2/19/38153817/Community_Memo_-_WIS_Temporary_Evacuation.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.98.229.194 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also of interest: "The plant had reported to the EPA and local public safety officials that it presented no risk of fire or explosion" http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130417-west-fertilizer-plant-said-in-report-that-it-presented-no-risk.ece --beefyt (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a bit of a conflict in the article "...West Fertilizer Company[4] plant in...", "...a fertilizer mixing and storage facilty...". Is this place actually a plant, or is it a PDC (product distribution centre)? Looking at google maps and speaking to some chem engineers in the nitorgen (ammonia) fertiliser industry, there have been some doubts raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.52 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For consideration

(Temporarily?) add early reports of proximate nursing home collapse and link to sources for those who may be searching? Found: http://writingshares.com/waco-texas-fertilizer-plant-explodes-nursing-home-collapses-hundreds-of-victims-possible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.206.17 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2013‎ (UTC)

The details on Adair Grain need to be refined for relevance. The paragraph extrapolates some inferences from the limited TCEQ reports. jbapowell (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Please change the protection level of this article from unprotected to semi-protected to reduce over editing. Great50 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You (or someone) should probably file a request at WP:RPP. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Over-editing is not an adequate reason for semi-protecting a page. It's like telling the new kids they can't work on the really cool projects because they're new. That's just not nice, and it may discourage new editors from even trying. Rklawton (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

We have one individual in a position of authority claiming 60-70 deaths, and others stating that the total is not known at this time. Out of an abundance of caution we should wait to report that detail until we can get more clarity. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Speculation as to cause is inappropriate

The witness cited is not an expert on fire behavior, and until we have a factual basis on which to rest any claims as to the source of the explosion, we should not speculate. polarscribe (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

and he wasn't even an eyewitness if he was 1000 feet away from the fire when the explosion occurred. There are multiple reports, however, that there were firefighters on scene fighting a fire in the plant at the time. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Map

I am working on an SVG openstreetmap.org map that will include the disaster site, the hospitals and triage locations. Will post within an hour or so. Ben (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. Ryan Vesey 04:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The location marked on the map looks like a school baseball field in google earth - looks like the actual plant location is slightly to the east across the RR tracks. 216.52.207.102 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone developed this photo of the scene.Pikachudad (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC) src="http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/Flingwingflyer/WestTX_zpsd7218441.jpg ">

Quote of "Just like Iraq, just like the Murrah Building"

The following discussion 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.

---

I think that quote is meaningful and important in the context of an informed eyewitness account from a public official - comparing the devastation seen in a section of the city to the devastation that occurs from war or an act of terrorism. polarscribe (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Explain how it's meaningful. The burden is on you. Iraq is a country, not a crater. The Murrah building makes sense, as that was an actual explosion. "Iraq" is not a meaningful measurement for our readers. Just because some redneck said it at a news conference doesn't mean we have to include every word here. We can use editorial discretion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're attacking a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety as a "redneck." That's not much of an argument. polarscribe (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not part of the argument. I wrote a lot more than just that. If I hurt his feelings, he can come talk to me. The fact remains that the burden is on you to describe how "Iraq" is a unit of measurement. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you sound like a real winner of a human being. Redneck indeed. Jesus. 05:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "Iraq" absolutely has meaning, just as the word "Vietnam" has meaning to an earlier generation of Americans. Perhaps we need to expand or explain that meaning - heck, with, y'know, a Wikilink... but the implication is clear - he is referencing a country that is primarily known to Americans as a devastated war zone famous for bombings, deaths and destruction. polarscribe (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Vietnam" would have no meaning here, either. If he said "Hue" or something, maybe.

We are by absolutely no means required to put the whole absurd quote in (or any of the quote, for that matter). I don't dispute what he's getting at, I just believe in using the meaningful part of his statement. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Vietnam" absolutely would have meaning. You don't have to know what the "Battle of Hue" is to know that Vietnam was a colossal disaster. In the context of the sentence, it is clear that "Iraq" is being used to describe a scene of devastation, and it is a meaningful word to a generation of Americans who grew up watching bombs fall on Baghdad and IEDs blowing up American troops. The fact that he didn't cite a specific battle is of no consequence. Nobody (and by "nobody" I mean the vast majority of Americans) remembers specific battles of the Iraq War. polarscribe (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree: In the context of the sentence, it's more understandable. That context didn't exist when I edited the article. You added it later. No point in whining at me about stuff you did after the fact. When I removed it (both times) it had no such context. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is with the dubious tag? Ryan Vesey 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well some people don't understand how analogies work. --86.183.90.112 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And some people don't understand what dubious tags are for. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking and power-tripping? --86.183.90.112 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't say. I'm not the one who tagged it. I'm the one who untagged it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay folks, lets just take a deep breath for a second. Obviously there are going to be things about the scene of a massive explosion that remind certain people (especially veterans, etc) of a warzone. That's perfectly valid, but that doesn't mean we need to include such quotes/responses. In time, there will be official statements from official representatives in formal press conferences and those are probably the ones we should be quoting. You should feel free to start collating those here for future use, but just editing each one into the article is probably just going to cause edit-warring. Other than that; breath. Stalwart111 05:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This was an official statement by an official representative in a formal press conference. polarscribe (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So? WP:UNDUE. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to this line: "In time, there will be official statements from official representatives in formal press conferences and those are probably the ones we should be quoting."

At any rate, I've said my piece, made the argument and will leave it at that. polarscribe (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A person so obviously prejudiced as to call a Texas public safety official a "redneck" should be immediately relieved of any editing ability on this article. Language of that degree of contempt goes beyond a lack of civility. It is obviously an example of ethnic prejudice and bias, and as such, it should not appear in discussion pages. By the way, i believe that what the official was referring to was not a battle-zone in Iraq but to the oilfields on fire in Iraq, as in the WIkipedia article Rumaila oil field and this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbm01LmpzY 70.36.137.19 (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks "redneck" is an ethnic slur is obviously a Yankee. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yankee American or Yankee Northerner? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I say strip the quote for now under UNDUE. And no personal attacks, implied or otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think we can keep the quote. I'm not seeing it as an UNDUE issue. It's not a reaction quote, it's used as a description of the event, and until we have pictures to use, it's the best thing we've got. Ryan Vesey 06:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I restored the uncontroversial part of the quote referencing the OKC bombing, and it is sourced in the WFAA article. polarscribe (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I think it's okay, for now but I think we need to be conscious of the fact that eventually there are going to be statements that are fact-based (as opposed to adjective/emotion based) and we can use the full gamut of official statements to provide an accurate picture of the scene and the response and the long-term impact. There are going to be lots of "first impression" type comments made in the few couple of hours while few facts are available. Just keep WP:NOTNEWS in mind and think about what the different statements add to our encyclopaedic account of the event. Stalwart111 06:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As 70.36.137.19 points out above, (probably inadvertently) proving my point, saying it's "like Iraq" has no meaning. Like an explosion in Iraq? Like the oil field fires? Like a desert? It has no inherent meaning. That was my point. I agree with keeping some of the statement until we have something better (which shouldn't take long), but only the part that our readers can objectively understand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is confusing that the statement "like Iraq" means "like a warzone", under your logic, saying like the Murrah Building could also be misunderstood since it could mean the scene looks like a low-rise modernist building. Ryan Vesey 06:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that the whole statement sucked, and if you want to remove the rest of the sentence, I don't have a problem with that. I apologize if I've been unclear about that at any point. On the other hand, if you're just being deliberately obtuse, then let's just move on. Because we could extend these clever little analogies into oblivion, and start getting all metaphysical about how no man can ever step twice into the same river, and therefore nothing could ever be compared to anything else, and maybe all reality is just a construct of our own perceptions, and yadda yadda yadda. But I think we could all find better ways to spend our time right now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the quote is more than likely not a reliable source for the comparison for the content of said quote. Just because a RS reports 'Someone said X' doesn't mean that it is valid. In this case it is a comparison, an emotional one, I doubt that the individual has personal experience for meaningful comparison that a picture wouldn't suffice. The quote is essentially inputting drama into the article because an RS reported said drama. Sorry if it sounds rough, but the comparison is not fitting, encyclopedic or reliable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the words "ethnic prejudice and bias" and replays the term back as "ethnic slur" is insufficiently literate to be editing Wikipedia. To conflate the two concepts is ridiculous, and demonstrates a poorly organized mind that is merely jumping from one pre-filed term with "ethnic" in it to another, without a hint of reasoned thought. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. That's a Yankee all right. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 07:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, it seems to me that you might better spend time on building the article, versus denigrating someone else's attempt to do so - you've gone well beyond the point where anyone should feel required to assume good faith Irish Melkite (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? You're right, after eight years and tens of thousands of edits, I am past the point where anyone has to "assume" that I'm editing in good faith. I've contributed more than my share to this article already. Unlike the troll I was responding to. So I suggest you move on, instead of showing up five hours after the fact to put your two cents in. Some of us were up at 3 in the morning, actually working on this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Similar events?

Without making any statement about this quote, I wonder if there's room for a section for similar events, so that the reader can place this explosion in context. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing page references that explosion as measured as a M3.0 earthquake, so this as an M2.1 earthquake was smaller but similar. You could also easily make comparisons of fact to IEDs which use similar chemicals but that are much smaller in general. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Negative. Unless a reliable source uses that data to make the comparison, that's original research. WP:SYNTH. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this wasn't a bomb. A Richter scale number would be okay but synthing that with comparisons to bombings would be iffy. Stalwart111 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I split this into a new section for easy reading. Stalwart111 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

USGS related, according to Fox it did not register on the seismograph. "Rafael Abreu, a geophysicist with National Earthquake Information Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, said the explosion did not register on a seismograph because most of the blast's energy dissipated in the atmosphere."[1] This is wrong, but there is truth that the energy would not be focused in a meaningful way to approximate the force of the blast. Should we note the error, but note the science behind the statement? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered: this article includes a tweeted picture which is supposed to be a seismograph reading from Amarillo. Stalwart111 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, seems like just another unnecessary quote to me. If it's inaccurate, then it's unencyclopedic, and (at best) using it at all gives it undue weight. So we would have to balance it with tons of info to the contrary, and to what end? We don't have to include every bit of incorrect analysis, and then ten sources saying why it's wrong, just for lack of better content to fill the page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the seismograph thing is hinky because, yes it showed up on seismographs, but it's not really a meaningful number for anything because of the fact that most of the force vented upward. polarscribe (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying use the quote, but pointing out that the quote from someone within the USGS is wrong and is being touted in a RS, and not in a weak way either. Granted the twitter pic is bad, but the data mark contradicts the quote from the individual. If it sticks, a note will be needed as this is a clear contradiction. WP:V is not WP:TRUTH. But this seems obvious to me who's right, the machines (many reported) versus the individual. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of ignoring the quote and the alleged magnitude - given that it appears everyone agrees magnitude as measured by distant seismometers isn't necessarily going to create comparable results. Note that it showed up on a USGS seismometer in Amarillo and leave it at that. Kafziel has a point about not needing to include this bit of incorrect analysis. polarscribe (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

USGS has posted it: https://twitter.com/USGS/status/324888973686231041 tlws 15:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ni9m4tic (talk • contribs)

Notability

Should there be an article on this event? It is not unusual for fires to break out in chemical or fertilizer factories, and these often lead to explosions and deaths. What is so special about this one?203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of an event like this that doesn't have an article? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Until then, I can give you an example of a recent one that does: 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion. Stalwart111 07:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion article opens with a statement that the explosion occurred at a factory which did not have a valid permit. This one occurred at a factory which had a permit based on a self assessment that there was no explosion or fire hazard involved in bulk storage of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia which are two compounds with long histories of bulk explosions. Is this an example of bias towards Indian industry? Djapa Owen (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an example of different articles written by different people. And you are free to edit either one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The widespread media coverage is a good sign (and requirement) of notability. --beefyt (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP should read WP:GNG and come back when they've grasped this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of factory explosions causing death are not given their own Wikipedia articles - it is self evident that only a very exceptional minority have articles. The 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion probably should not have an article either. Widespread media coverage is only one criteria of notability. However even then, looking at my Google news screen, this explosion does not have a huge number of reports, certainly not the exceptional number required to elevate this beyond day-to-day news into historical notability, which is what this question is really about.203.184.41.226 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, beyond any long-term impact, the story monopolized news coverage in countries other than the US (like in my native Australia). The lack of detailed reports is likely due to a number of factors: it was later at night, details won't be available until morning and the area is relatively remote (20 miles to the nearest major town). Be assured most of the morning news programs will be broadcasting from West tomorrow, Waco at least. Long term impacts are likely - town rebuilding, regulatory action, investigation, etc. The Sivakasi article was nominated for deletion and information was very hard to source, even months later. I commented there that an equivalent event in the US would have no trouble being considered notable. I stand by that and really can't see how this would ever be considered non-notable. Stalwart111 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So the short answer is, no, he can't point to a case like this that doesn't have an article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'm one of those more sympathetic to 'notnews' type arguments, but they're just ridiculous here. Any peacetime explosion which causes multiple casualties ought to be automatically considered notable. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is U.S. centric for many articles of otherwise questionable notability, but it is because of the editor pool. Other countries and other events are notable and if they meet GNG or have a claim then it should count. While not ideal, explosions like this are unusual enough to warrant a page provided they have sources for GNG even if people think they may not meet notability requirements. GNG is a way to prove NOTE as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

GOOD POINT. Notability, not news. Eventually, there will be an encyclopedia story on this event. So it should be covered. However, care should be exercised to not become the 'leading edge' of news on this story. Pikachudad (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Let's wait a little while per WP:RECENT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What a little while for what? To have an article? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Leave the article in place for now before adjudicating deletion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yeah, it's not going anywhere. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It destroyed a 50-unit apartment building, a nursing home, and dozens of houses -- a significant chunk of the town. This makes it more notable than a run-of-the-mill industrial explosion. 70.192.203.200 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Title moved

I see that Dmarquard has moved the article from West Fertilizer Plant explosion to West Fertilizer plant explosion. However, I feel the capitalization just looks unnatural. When parsing the four words "west fertilizer plant explosion" in a row, to me it is more natural to think of it as "an explosion which happened at a fertilizer plant in West" than "an explosion which happened at a plant of West Fertilizer (Company)," especially given that the word "Company" is omitted. (Though if we try to include that, "West Fertilizer Company plant explosion" is just plain wordy.) So I've moved it to West fertilizer plant explosion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Stalwart111 09:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one confused by the naming on this article, your current change seems to work best. J.Rly (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree I think it should have stayed West Fertilizer Plant explosion, but I feel that is too ambiguous anyways. How about West Texas Fertilizer Plant explosion?

Why not simply "West, Texas explosion" or "West, Texas fertilizer explosion". Lots of sources are using those or including an extra comma e.g. "West, Texas, explosion". 'plant' is confusing as it is more typically used for equipment/infrastructure rather than consumables, or combustibles in this case. A link to chemical plant wouldnt go astray. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually alot of sources are simply saying Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion. I needs to be "West, Texas fertilizer plant explosion" or "Texas fertilizer plant explosion" The current title doesn't fit. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If the name of the building is "West Fertilizer Plant", then I think it was fine where it was at the very beginning. (Cf. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.) So is that the official name of the place? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that is the building name. The capital P Plant seems to be caused by early reporting . Google Street View isnt working for me so I cant check, tho google local is working[2]. If it is only a storage facility, lowercase 'plant' is also incorrect. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As shown in the (currently) bottom thread, sources are starting to correct the "plant" thing. Might be time for another move soon. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to '2013 West, Texas explosion' until we know more about cause and effect. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really fond of 2013 West, Texas explosion as a title, I keep reading it as "2013 West" and "Texas explosion". Not saying I have a better title, but ... meh. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Me either, let's just revert it back to the original title until we can decide on one. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This shouldn't be a series of unilateral decisions. Let's try to find some consensus. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why do we need a date? Are there other articles about fertilizer plant explosions in this town we need to distinguish from? If not, then at the least a year is unnecessary in this title. Whether we name it after the town or the specific company that owned the plant, or something else, we certainly don't need to disambiguate this by date. --Jayron32 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a 2nd comma in the title? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't make the move back to the original title until West Fertilizer Plant explosion is deleted so I can moved the title again. Once it is moved I will request move protection until we can get a consensus. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what title is best, but as noted above, the year certainly doesn't belong.
Note that the second comma ("West, Texas, explosion") was consistent with the advice provided at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, but I've noticed that we generally don't seem to apply that convention (treating the second element of a location construction as a parenthetical) to article titles. —David Levy 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just FYI, Google search results for "west fertilizer plant explosion" [43,800 results] vastly outnumbers results for "west fertilizer company explosion", "west fertilizer co explosion", "west fertilizer explosion", "west fertilizer co plant explosion" and "west fertilizer company plant explosion". Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Police Sergeant Patrick Swanton stated that they received the first emergency call about the fire at 7:29pm local time and the explosion occurred at 7:53. This is quite different to what was initially reported as the fire was thought to be around 6:00pm. Has anyone got RS to verify what was stated by the police sergeant so that the time can be altered from 7:50 to 7:53. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Look up BLEVE

Initial large fire - what was the cause of that. There was reportedly 54,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia at the cite. That would be in a large pressurized storage tank. Under fire conditions, such a tank could undergo a BLEVE - Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion.

Also any Ammonia is explosive under a tight range of conditions in air (between 13-15wt%). So an ammonia vapor release (from the vessel release) into that fire could form a vapor cloud that could have been ignited.

For a large scale Ammonia release, see the governments "Desert Tortoise" experiments.

Pikachudad (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

| Someone on another site said: ‘West Fertilizer Co. reported having as much as 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on hand in an emergency planning report required of facilities that use toxic or hazardous chemicals.

But the report, reviewed Wednesday night by The Dallas Morning News, stated “no” under fire or explosive risks. The worst possible scenario, the report said, would be a 10-minute release of ammonia gas that would kill or injure no one. “

Don't have a link to the official source. Pikachudad (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130417-west-fertilizer-plant-said-in-report-that-it-presented-no-risk.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachudad (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Common knowledge on cause of explosion

with my common sense knowledge of the flameability of the substances in a fertilizer plant, there is a video showing the plant was on fire before the explosion. i feel that the wording of the "cause of the explosion is unknown" should be changed to "the cause of the fire that caused the explosion is currently unknown" source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBrflt-9Zw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.134 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Plant Permit Information

Search of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for "West Fertilizer" returns one result. So the sites permit was granted in 2006 about 7 years ago.

WEST FERTILIZER CO New Permit 79803 MCLENNAN 12/12/2006

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/NewSourceReview/Agendas/dec2006.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachudad (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This source discusses that the site had TWO 12,000-gallon tanks of anhydrous ammonia. One or both of these is likely the source of the explosion.

Report states that a sister company 'Adair Grain Inc.,' is located at the same site as West Fertilizer. That means we have some grain storage at the site. What was the source of the huge initial fire?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-officials-knew-in-2006-that-west-fertilizers-tanks-of-anhydrous-ammonia-were-near-school-homes.html/

Pikachudad (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

54,000 lbs of Ammonia divided by Density 37 lb/ft3 at typical temperature gives 1,460 cubic foot of liquid. Convert to U.S. Gallons (*7.48) gives 10,921 U.S. Gallons of Ammonia. Or approximately one full (85% ish) tank worth of Ammonia on site. Pikachudad (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian reports that the EPA told it: "We conducted an inspection of the risk management plan in March 2006. The facility was fined $2,300 and they certified that they had corrected the deficiency (later that year)," an EPA official said." Robbiemorrison (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Anhydrous NH3 or Nitrate?

Ignorance of journalists has caused a lot of confusion between anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate. Le Figraro (wherever they get their information) report that this is anhydrous ammonia and and not the nitrate, and that this was a distribution facitlity rather than a chemical plant, in which case the statement in the article, "which, along with nitric acid, is used to produce ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer, pesticide, and rodenticide" would be not only irrelevant but misleading. The reference on that statement to the Texas permit says nothing about nitrate.

However even on this talk page people are recommending adding this to the ammonium nitrate disasters list.

Somebody with the authority to clean this up needs to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.134.148 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I follow you in that it seems to generally be agreed among reliable sources that it was anhydrous ammonia.

You lose me, though, in saying that "anhydrous ammonia along with nitric acid is used to produce ammonium nitrate" is misleading. Anhydrous ammonia plus nitric acide is ammonium nitrate, is it not? So I'm not clear what you mean by that.

People are allowed to suggest whatever they want on talk pages, but at this point the article doesn't seem to have any inaccurate categories or false statements. Am I missing something? I'm happy to help, but I don't see what needs to be cleaned up. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

From what quotes I caught from people on the scene, it was supposed to be due to water accidentally hitting the ammonium nitrate while the firefighters were working on the fire, thus causing the explosion. (Stated by a possible witness? http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130417-explosion-injuries-reported-at-fertilizer-plant-near-waco-in-west-texas.ece) Isn't that sort of what happened at Texas City? I do know they were concerned with an anhydrous ammonia tank after the explosion, because there was fire under it and they were afraid it would either explode too or start to expand and escape, causing a toxic cloud. From that, I can only assume they had both on site. tlws 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ni9m4tic (talk • contribs)

We can't do anything based on assumptions or speculations from witnesses or the media. Seeing a fire doesn't qualify someone to determine its cause. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Source quotes a Hotel Clerk Pikachudad (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the first article from Hydrocarbon Processing. Cites a police sgt saying it was a railroad tanker of ammonia. Not the site storage tanks. Hmmm.

"Waco Police Sgt. William Patrick Swanton said at a Thursday morning briefing that the fire and blast appeared to involve a railroad tanker carrying anhydrous ammonia." http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3192998/Latest-News/Explosion-at-Texas-fertilizer-plant-injures-hundreds.html Pikachudad (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Same root source but NY Post article. Still fairly speculative on cause.

"Authorities suspect the blast was set off by a truck or rail car holding a large quantity of ammonia that somehow caught fire or blew up. Ammonia, under certain conditions, can become combustible or explosive." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/waco_plant_explosion_kills_criminal_HKroeaVUFAbVElwYRoRKHM Pikachudad (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC

Don't listen to KAKU. He keeps conflating ammonium nitrate with anhydrous ammonia. I don't know of ANY working hypothesis where fire hose water can set of anhydrous ammonia... GEEZUM. ""The working hypothesis is there was a fire explosion. Firemen were called on site in a routine operation, but the hose water might have set off anhydrous ammonia, creating a chain reaction of explosions, releasing this ... force, which can level several city blocks." "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57580193/west-texas-explosion-explaining-the-physics-behind-blast/ Pikachudad (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually not only was there discussion above, but this explosion was already added to the ammonium nitrate disasters article. I've removed it for now, let's not re-add it until there's clarity over whether ammonium nitrate was involved. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Previous incident at same plant

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Documents-show-West--203543061.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.184.40 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Retail Facility not a production plant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/18/the-texas-fertilizer-plant-explosion-is-horrific-but-how-common-is-this/

But notice that West, Texas isn’t on that map. That’s because the fertilizer plant that exploded wasn’t a production facility. It was a retail facility, one of approximately 6,000 around the country that sells directly to farmers in a 50- to 100-mile radius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.214 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Right at the top of this WAPO article: Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to the fertilizer facility as a plant. It is a retail facility, and the story has been corrected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fertilizer-plant-explosion-leaves-more-than-100-wounded-in-central-texas/2013/04/18/14fa7cb2-a7ef-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.214 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great. An actual source. That's what I wanted.

We require those here. That's what makes us as reliable as possible. Doesn't make me a "moron" not to take your word for it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

False flag operation

Why is there no coverage of the suggestion that this was a purposeful sabotage by the US government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't in a reliable source, it doesn't go here, friend. We aren't here to start rumors or publish fringe theories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This site's definition of reliable is highly dubious. I would not consider any of your 'reliable sources' reliable. I would call them the most questionable sources there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny, though, that here you are, reading it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. If you wish to change the site's policies regarding reliable sources, you are welcome to propose such a policy change and attempt to gain consensus from the Wikipedia community to accept your proposal. You are not welcome to contravene existing policies. polarscribe (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

Is it possible to clean up this section a bit? It's starting to look fragmented. There's no need to post every person's reaction. Gorba (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd suggest that we set, at the most inclusive end, a bar of reactions having to have been covered in reliable, secondary sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo link

I removed the photo because regardless of the careless nature of its Flickr upload by an AP-subscribing news organization, the photo is clearly tagged in its credit line as an Associated Press photo taken by a Dallas Morning News photographer. AP photos are copyrighted and we do not have evidence that the AP or DMN have released the photo under a Creative Commons license. polarscribe (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's how its done. We don't use pirated images. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for —67.216.240.67 (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As the coordinates currently in the article appear to be correct for the West Fertilizer Company (and the IP has offered no specific emendation), I'm deactivating the {{geodata-check}} template above. Deor (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the year in the title?

This is apparently the only notable explosion in West, Texas - why "2013" in the title? Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed actively above. Lets keep this discussion all in one section. --Jayron32 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Intensity map

It seems odd to include the intensity map without explaining it in text. Initially looking at it I didn't understand why there wasn't anything near the explosion. Then I realized it said internet intensity map, so I assumed it had something to do with internet usage. Finally, I realized it came from a poll, but that isn't made clear in the article. Ryan Vesey 04:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

{{Requested move/dated|?}}

West (Texas) explosion → ? – OK. Can we seriously all stop moving the article till we arrive at a consensus title. I don't frankly care what it is now, lets just declare a moratorium on moving it to anything else until we decide what to move it to. We've have about 10 moves in the past 4-5 hours, which is just ridiculous. Below, someone just propose a new title, and we can have a vote for it. I don't care what we come up with, just lets make our decision via discussion and not by every person moving it to their own preferred title. --Jayron32 06:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Title 1

• Support or oppose and rationale

Title 2

• Support or oppose and rationale

etc.

Whatever the title may be, can we get rid of the horrible title that it's at right now? The city is West, Texas, not West (Texas). Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 07:00, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

2013 West explosion

My proposal, 2013 West explosion, is a simplified name that avoids the word Texas, so people aren't fighting over various ways to include Texas in the name. The year should be prepended, similar to newer tornado articles (see links in Tornadoes of 2012) and older un-named hurricane articles (see links in Cat5 Atlantic Hurricanes). This title is "food for thought" to get things kicked off. I'm not stuck on this one, but I do expect the year to be in the article name. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose there have been other explosions in 2013 in places known as the West or West -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too ambiguous. —David Levy 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The entire town of West did not explode. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as "huh?" Abductive (reasoning) 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as inscrutable. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Explosion in West, Texas

• Support as proposer: Reading the various titles gets confusing because of the comma, and because West leads people to expect it'll be an adjective and modify something. We can't eliminate that, but of all the ways to reorder the words I've played with, this one scans well and I think cleanly to new readers. It's not the order we'd usually write it in, but that doesn't phase me. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better options have been proposed, so there's no need for the unusual word order. And in that context, the year is entirely superfluous (unless other notable explosions have occurred in West, Texas). —David Levy 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per David. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

West fertilizer plant explosion

• Support as proposer Any combination of the words "West" and "Texas" can get confusing because the explosion happened in West, Texas, but not in West Texas. This title is descriptive, but not overly confusing geographically. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 07:41, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
• Support moratorium, per proposer What exploded was the fertilizer plant, hence West Fertilizer Plant explosion which I was about to change it to before checking talk, however a couple of days is not a problem. BTW anhydrous ammonia is seldom sold to farmers! Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly can be any fertilizer plant explosion in the West -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Would West Fertilizer plant explosion satisfy your objection? Two capitalized words in a row signify both as being together as one name. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The building was not a plant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Texas fertilizer plant explosion

• Support as proposer clearly "West" is the problem, and Texas has enough regional specificity to serve as distinguishing it from other fertilizer plant explosions for 2013. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. You appear to have identified the problem and a simple solution. We needn't include "West" in the title. "2013 Texas fertilizer plant explosion" is a sufficient description. —David Levy 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  As discussed below, let's replace "plant" with "facility". —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Switching to neutral. I believe that a better option has been proposed below. —David Levy 18:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The building was not a plant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Fox News [3] CBS News [4] ; ABC News [5] ; CNN [6] ; NY Daily News [7] ; CNBC [8] ; Reuters [9] ; NPR [10] ; The Guardian [11] ; LA Times [12] ; Washington Post [13] ; Wall Street Journal [14] ; USA Today [15] ; all disagree with your statement that it wasn't a plant. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  "facility" in place of "plant" also works for me. (I am proposer), leaving off the term would also work, but the general usage seems to be "plant"; -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, no, the Washington Post (for one) has corrected themselves. See statement at top of this page. And that problem is exactly my point with my statement below: Nobody bothers to fix things on the Internet. They just correct themselves from that point on, and search results remain skewed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, what is the meaning of "plant" versus "facility"? Abductive (reasoning) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  "Plant" implies manufacture. "Facility" does not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Excellent point. Let's go with "2013 Texas fertilizer facility explosion" instead. —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

West Fertilizer Co explosion

• Support as having a decent level of usage. Abductive (reasoning) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose using abbreviations. If the name of the place is West Fertilizer Company, then we should call it that, and I would be fine with West Fertilizer Company explosion, in line with what I said in the comments section. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kafziel. I'm fine with "West Fertilizer Company explosion". —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

West Fertilizer Company explosion

• Support as having a decent level of usage, but less than "Co". Abductive (reasoning) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accurate and unambiguous. —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Since it has been established it is not a plant and we don't need a date, or Texas in the title, this one seems to be the most reasonable and it even says it in the lead (which I think needs to be expanded a bit, but that is a different issue) JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comments elsewhere. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Similar to other disaster articles, particularly work-place shootings. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - As stated above. To me this is the most conforming use, and avoids the issues of the stupidly named West, Texas. (Not the article, the town itself....for a state with a region commonly referred to as West Texas, not to mention a cardinal direction that is generally used in reference to that area of the state, it makes absolutely no sense to name a town West, Texas. And that's from a Texas inhabitant.)
• Support. Only reasonable choice. Neutrality^talk 20:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as at least a good, probably better alternative to what I proposed. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 West Fertilizer facility explosion

• Support Includes the year like other Wikipedia articles of this nature. West Fertilizer Company is the name of the firm, so you don't get into the issue of West Texas v. West, Texas. Also clarifies that this facility was not a plant. --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Date is unnecessary. This is getting repetitive now. Consensus isn't reached by just randomly throwing out suggestions, people. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  This is a survey, and consensus is forming up nicely. Abductive (reasoning) 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Kafziel that this is getting out of hand. We don't need a separate proposal for every slight variation. —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  How so? Every idea so far has supports and opposes, we need to eliminate some suggestions and narrow the titles down to 2-3 suggestions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our standard procedure is to append the year when it's needed to distinguish an event from others occurring in different years. Unless there have been other notable "West Fertilizer facility explosions", the year is superfluous here.
  And if we're to specify the company's name, we should do so in full. I see no benefit to substituting "facility" for "Company". —David Levy 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. Neutrality^talk 20:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

West, Texas explosion

• Support as proposer as this proposal would be the most simple title to use, and is probably the most common name for this incident. No news source appears to be using "West Fertilizer Company Explosion" in their content. -- 92.13.53.45 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This title has already been tried and rejected because it's confusing. Most sources don't call it anything; they're reporting on what happened and where. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kafziel. This title is insufficiently clear and presents a style issue (discussed above). —David Levy 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• As I said earlier, I think it should be the name of the company/building and the event. Just as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. It has already been reasonably established that it was not a plant, but a storage facility, so "plant" should not be used at all unless it's capitalized as part of the name. Google results don't matter, because early reports vastly skewed toward mistakenly calling it a plant, and very few will ever go back and correct themselves. We shouldn't be adding to the confusion. If the name of the place is West Fertilizer, then the article should be at West Fertilizer explosion. If the name of the place is the West Fertilizer Plant, then the article should be at West Fertilizer Plant explosion. No date is needed if there hasn't been more than one, and the town name is confusing so that shouldn't be used either. This solves all the problems with confusion about names, commas, dates, and everything else. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I IARed and moved it, as you can see, to West Fertilizer Company explosion. We can continue to discuss, but after several hours things seem to be very heavily in favor of this title (it is the only one, in fact, with support from anyone besides its own nominator) and everyone definitely hated the title it was at when locked. So this is better for now, and hopefully will end up staying here anyway. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Background

There is background material to the explosion in this Naomi Spencer article. However, people sometimes get antsy about using the WSWS as a source. If there's a consensus not to use the piece as a reference, it still cites enough sources to be useful to editors looking to duplicate the research. --Nixin06 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Center of blast not destroyed?

The article currently mention nothing about the condition of the center / origin of the blast, resulting in the suggestion that it is perfectly fine, even though most news sources mention it as a "crater". This needs to be fixed.--Auric talk 15:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

References

So fix it. The article isn't locked. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Auric talk 16:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous school evacuations

The article user:nixin06 mentions above says "The middle school near the facility has been evacuated multiple times due to fumes and pollution. According to an analysis by the Houston Chronicle, the company failed to report any “emission events” to state air pollution authorities after these incidents."[16]

In Feb there was a controlled "burn of pallets and brush", but the school wasnt notified.[17][18][19] While it is being repeated many times, it is relevant. I can't see other reported cases of the school being evacuated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Better/more sources needed

The following needs better sources:

According to a filing with the EPA in late 2012, the company stated that it stored 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and 110,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on the site.

At present, it cites only "Fernandez, Manny; Schwartz, John. Blast at Plant Tears at Heart of Texas Town. The New York Times, 2013-04-19, page 1". Ordinarily, the NYT is a pretty satisfactory source. But this is a really serious charge, and we shouldn't be using a second-hand source. I'm not saying they're lying, but where is the actual filing with the EPA? If we don't have that, and we don't have more sources for the statement, then we should be attributing the claim to the New York Times instead of stating it as a fact. Anyone know where we can find more sources? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: The "serious charge" is that they had it and didn't tell anyone. A good example of the kind of confusion I'm talking about: According to the Chicago Tribune, the company reported the ammonium nitrate to the Texas Department of State Health Services. So by adding that source, it looks like they at least told someone else at the state level. So we really have to be careful about putting this stuff out without multiple sources and 100% confirmation. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually we prefer secondary sources to primary ones. I don't see anyone making any charges in that statement anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not in all cases. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've kept the NYT's facts in the background, but removed the speculation about whether the operator had informed everyone they needed to inform. The speculation was sourced to this, which states that the state had been informed (but of a lesser quantity). I've read elsewhere that they were cited from not having the necessary labels on their chemical storage units, but if that happened a while ago then it is probable that the chemical warnings were added. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Found it "Last summer, the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Material Administration fined the plant, a retail and warehouse facility for grains and fertilizer, $10,000 for safety violations, citing inadequate markings on the tanks and deficient transportation plans for the fertilizer. Farmers hauled it away from the plant in tanks pegged to the backs of their pickup trucks. The fine was settled for $5,250, according to agency records. " [20] It sounds like they were smacked for not ensuring the farmers were transporting it correctly. That seems unrelated to this explosion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

SA and others are saying the plan filed with the EPA was in 2011. NYT says "A filing late last year with the Environmental Protection Agency".[21] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, the 2011 Risk Management Plan is here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The risk Management plan does not mention the Ammonium Nitrate. However, the Adair Grain Inc 2012 Report - published by USA Today via msnbcmedia - shows that Adair reported the Ammonium nitrate in that report. Reporting period Jan 1 to Dec 31 2012. Printed April 18, 2013 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/Adair%20Grain%20Inc%202012%20Tier%202%20Report.pdf Pikachudad (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast

"The same report stated that the plant did not have even rudimentary fire safety equipment, such as alarms and sprinkler systems."

One can be sure the local fire dept. did inspect the plant and they had felt there was no danger except that by an unstoppable consequence.

The (insurance) investigatators have plainly stated they are unsure if the event is criminal in any way whatsoever.

It's defaming to many involved to insinuate the explosion was a result of poor plant operation while admittedly not knowing the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be careful to avoid making overt suggestions of the cause until there is clarity in reporting about the cause. A lot of news is digging into the prior running of the facility, so that needs to be included in our article, but we should remain conservative until the facts are clear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We never (as far as I read) say that the cause was operation. We just mention (with sources) that it was operated without all the requirements and/or inspections. This is slippery slope by the IP in trying to claim defamation (unless I'm missing something). Regardless, this should not go in the article the way the IP is trying to put it in. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is claiming our article was edging too close to defaming the operators, due to this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that had to be removed, but since there seems to be some consensus to remove it, so be it. In my opinion, it should've stayed until the IP can provide some reasoning for why it's defaming to state a fact that a report said it didn't have equipment it should've been required to have. The IP also makes some OR/speculative statements "be sure..." to further their point.. All in all, I'd readd it if I were me, but I'll leave it to you. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not the same as a BLP concern but it is under libel concerns. Which is why I agree with John Vandenberg. This matter is very public and highly sensitive, but we should never turn a blind eye to libelous speculation considering that certain facilities CANNOT use water based extinguishers do to risk of explosion. Anhydrous ammonia fires (in tanks) must be extinguished with steam or CO2, but not by spraying water onto the tanks. The reason? The releasing gas could freeze and result in an explosion. [22] So you already have one very obvious case that it would be a really bad idea to have sprinklers or water-based fire fighting methods which could actually cause an explosion. Let's not condemn or speculate because logic about fighting fires could actually get you killed with quite a few industrial chemicals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Zoning

In the 1960s it appears to be a rural area on the edge of the city limits, but there were houses there.[23][24] What is the current zoning? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this specific municipality, but zoning in Texas is particularly, um, laissez faire. There is no state-wide zoning practices or laws, and individual municipalities and counties are rather spotty about enacting local zoning ordinances. Famously, Houston (which is in a different part of Texas than this) has no zoning laws at all. Zoning in the United States has a little bit on this. So, while that doesn't mean that the community of West doesn't have any zoning ordinances, I wouldn't be quick to assume that they do, given the spotty nature of such laws across Texas. It's quite possible they don't, in which case "It's your land, build whatever the heck you want on it" may likely be the only zoning... --Jayron32 12:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, where I lived in TX in the 90s, there was no zoning at all. Strip clubs next to churches next to trailers next to four bedroom houses next to Wal Mart. Could be that it's the same in West. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Strip clubs next to churches? Really? Surely you're exaggerating. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still like that in some parts of Texas, having the strip clubs near houses/schools/churches/etc. Also bars. There's bars just everywhere. If there's some reliable source that says it's zoning wasn't followed (i.e. they built upon land not for them, etc.) then we should potentially think about adding it. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

{{cn}} But I digress. I sincerely doubt that the small town of West has any zoning laws, and according to Google maps, the plant appears, at least partially to have been located just outside city limits[25]. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, very funny. I'll see if I can dig anything up. gwickwire^talk_editing 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Map image

It really needs a red star or something like that to show the location of the West Fertilizer Company. I don't know how to do that witn an svg. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)