Talk:Ghost Ship warehouse fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 6 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 6 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: [1] --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)

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)

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^Talk 20:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Last summer, I saw a Youtube video with Joey Casio, (one of the victims of this fire) (KOMO-TV) and I was impressed. Soon after, I bought his music on iTunes. Just this morning, I found out that Casio died in the fire. A Green Day song refers to "things we lost in the fire." Today, those words seem very poignant. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:12, 9 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.[34][35] 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.[36][37]

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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry, if you want more people in the discussion, use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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. EEng 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^FIRE_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.[2]

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).[3]

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.”[4]

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)

I didn't see this discussion before I made that edit. But my immediate impression was that the sexuality or gender of the victims, and anyone's use of that information, was utterly immaterial to the subject of the article. If the event had something to do with the individual's sexual orientation or gender, then it might be pertinent. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So, if a fire gutted, say, an apartment building housing Syrian refugees, would it be immaterial to note the nationality and refugee status of the victims? Or let's say an earthquake flattened a school. Would it be immaterial to note that the victims were students and teachers? Maybe I misunderstand your logic. Unless I'm missing something, the article now makes no mention of transgender or LGBT victims despite their being mentioned repeatedly and prominently in multiple news stories. Do we have consensus for this omission? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• If the fire had happened at a specifically LGBT-oriented event or a specifically AA-oriented event, there would obviously be a lot more relevance to noting the gender or racial identities of the people killed — but it's not necessary to specifically call attention to the gender or racial identities of every individual who happens to be killed at a general event that wasn't specifically targeted to those communities. To use Rivertorch's examples above: if the apartment fire happened in a building that was being operated specifically as temporary emergency housing for Syrian refugees, then obviously we'd mention that, but it happened in a normal apartment building with residents of many backgrounds and merely happened to have Syrian refugees living in one or two units, that wouldn't merit special mention. And if an earthquake flattened a school, it would simply be the nature of the beast that people killed in that incident would be expected to be students and teachers, given that students and teachers are who would be expected to be in a school at the time of the event, so it wouldn't be a detail we would need to call special attention to as such. In a nutshell, if there's context for why it's significant that a couple of the fatalities were transgender people, then it would warrant mention — but just like anybody else, transgender people can be absolutely anywhere at absolutely any time, including the scenes of tragic events, so that fact doesn't automatically make the gender status of every casualty encyclopedically noteworthy in and of itself if there's no context (e.g. "the fire happened at a transgender-oriented event", or "the fire was deliberately set by an anti-transgender activist with the intention of killing the trans people present") for why gender would be relevant to the story. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I see what you're saying, Bearcat, and it makes way more sense than the comment I was replying to. Thank you. My analogies were imperfect. However, while I didn't (and would never) suggest that we should "specifically call attention to the gender or racial identities of every individual who happens to be killed at a general event that wasn't specifically targeted to those communities", I do think that if reliable sources deem it noteworthy to cover disaster victims' identities in news articles, then we run into a potential NPOV problem if we deliberately omit that information. It would be undue weight to make this a focal component of the article, but it may also be undue weight to leave it out entirely. Just a thought. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, NPOV doesn't require including every detail news sources mention, even uniformly, unless it helps the reader understand the article's subject. Until sources explain what this tells us about the fire or its circumstances, it's just gee-whiz filler. EEng 21:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is such a big deal to include demographics of the victims if they have been reported in various sources. Why does it have to be directly related to the nature of the incident? It would certainly be trivial to note that "50% of the victims were wearing t-shirts", but as a reader I might be interested to know a breakdown by gender or race just for understanding, especially if multiple media outlets have found this information noteworthy. This article specifically mentions the victims were there for a house music concert, how is the gender makeup of the dead less notable than the type of music they were going to listen to, which doesn't seem to have had any impact on the fire itself?— TAnthony^Talk 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Parking links for possible future use

• http://hyperallergic.com/347287/the-ghost-ship-fire-and-the-paradox-of-a-creative-city/

KConWiki (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fire-burning-out-of-control-at-West-Oakland-11030109.php

Not directly related, but mentions Ghost Ship in lead (owner tried to evict residents immediately after Ghost Ship fire). Not sure if or where it belongs in this article though. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• McLaughlin, Eliott C.; Gast, Phil (2017-06-06). "Two arrested in Oakland's deadly Ghost Ship fire". CNN. - Looks like the prosecutions are starting. I think this should be added to the article.Graham1973 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I added brief information about the arrests from a different source earlier today (to both the lead and body of the article). Funcrunch (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Listing names of victims

I don't think we need to name every victim to make this article complete, but I would suggest that we name the performers, and what musical genre they represented. Even if the performers didn't have Wikipedia pages, it doesn't mean that they were not notable in their fields. I believe listing the names of the performers, and what style of music they represented, would help readers of this article know what kind of performance was planned or underway when this tragedy occurred. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The test is whether someone reading the article ten years from now will care about the specific names. I think not. You can communicate the "kind of performance" by briefly mentioning the music genre(s). EEng 23:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a fair point, EENG, and the fact that I am a fan of one of the victims - Joey Casio - is why my neutrality circuit breaker has kicked in and I haven't "jumped in" to this article. I concede your point. Thank you for making said point in a respectful manner. I often see such arguments made in a less than constructive way. Your point is well taken. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that articles in Wikipedia should be consistent. Most articles of this nature that I have seen do indeed list the names of all victims. I don't see the harm in that. Again, I am promoting consistency across like articles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Example: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think articles should be written to inform readers about the subject as best possible in each case, not just be consistent for consistency's sake. Editors at the Sandy Hook article may have had their reasons, but I seriously question your contention that most such articles give complete lists of names, which tell the reader nothing. EEng 17:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the name of every victim should be listed, including the one or two that survived with injuries. The victims are of primary importance. This was not an empty warehouse that burned down. The interior of the building was the locus of intensive artistic endeavor. The works of art no doubt contributed to the tinder for the fire. This was not a warehouse that contained goods for commerce as might be moved around by a fork-truck. This was hand-made art and the presence of an artistic environment contributed to the suitability of this location for the music performance that ended tragically with a large concentration of people caught in smoke and fire. The names of the people are part-and-parcel of what transpired. They weren't anonymous individuals. The reason why we have a fire taking lives is directly connected to the artistic sensibilities of the people involved, and the deaths are the reasons for the focus on this fire by public officials and the media. The victims should be named because unfortunately they are an integral part of this story. Notice that the wounded are named in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. How do the specific names add to the reader's understanding of the fire or its circumstances? Should we not also give their home addresses? Their educational status? Annual income? EEng 18:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We are documenting what happened. No, we should not also give tangential information such as home address, educational status, and annual income. This discussion is about exercising judgement. The names can be considered basic identifying information. Some readers may know the victim, or know somebody who knows the victim, etc. Also, I think they are part of the story. They may not qualify for articles on Wikipedia. That is called notability. But they are notable, in a sense. That is my argument. These individuals enjoy a level of notability for being good people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I know that this tragedy was caused by lack of a sprinkler system, absence of smoke detectors, improper storage of flammable materials. But those who died probably cannot be tied to criminality. They were artists. These were people pursuing a natural and wholesome human inclination. The reason this incident receives the attention that it does is the heart-wrenching loss of innocent life. The article is made more complete by listing the names of the victims. They are an integral part of the story. We don't know how a reader uses an article. Our role is to provide potentially useful information. With that in mind it would be a contrivance for us to omit a list of names. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User:EEng is essentially saying: "It's important that people were killed. But, which specific people were killed is not important." I guess that makes sense to him. Not to me. Quite the opposite: it misses the point entirely. They were 36 people that were killed. And, guess what? In our society, people usually have names. So, this is not a statistical analysis of how many people were killed. It's a narrative of an event in which 36 people (who have names) were killed. Don't you get it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. You still haven't explained how the names of the victims will increase a reader's understanding, ten years from now, of what happened. EEng 04:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to look up the definition of "memorial", then. As it seems you do not understand the term. Listing a person's name is not a memorial. It is just that, a list. In other words, to make it plain and clear, a list and a memorial are two different things. In fact, two very different things. You stated: You still haven't explained how the names of the victims will increase a reader's understanding, ten years from now, of what happened. I already explained above. This is not an article that offers a statistical analysis of the number of people who died (36). It is a narrative of an event in which 36 people died. And we should know who those people are. They were central to the event. As I also said above, there are plenty of articles in which victim names are listed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How about just adding a link to a list of victims in External Links? Funcrunch (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. EEng 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. I hope this is an acceptable compromise for now. Funcrunch (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone see a rationale for the distinction in this regard between this article and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article? I am not arguing for the one article serving as a precedent for and therefore a justification for the other article. I don't like that reasoning, because I see each article as freestanding. But what would be the distinction, in anyone's perception? Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point above. Wikipedia should have some measure of consistency across articles. Yes, every article is -- by definition -- free-standing. However, there is ultimately little distinction between one tragedy versus another (in the global sense). It makes little sense to list victims for one tragedy, but not for another. Case in point: this article versus Sandy Hook (as I pointed out above). I am sure there are many, many articles about tragedies. And I am quite sure some do list the victims, while some do not. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Having looked briefly at several other articles on mass tragedies, I am wondering whether the decision to list the victims' names is based partly on 1) Whether the casualties are clearly due to crime (shooting, arson, etc.), and 2) Total number of victims. For example, several of the fires in the List of nightclub fires claimed more than 100 lives, which would be impractical to list in full on a Wikipedia page. However, the UpStairs Lounge arson attack does have a list of all 32 victims (as well as survivors, which is probably unnecessary). Funcrunch (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The names do matter. The article is incomplete without the names. The argument thus far against listing the names concerns the relative obscureness of the victims which, it is argued, will be even more obscure in ten years. But this article is a document most importantly involving the loss of life. Each life lost has a name. Nothing in the entire article exceeds that information which surrounds the lives lost. Further commentary on the individuals whose lives were lost is of secondary importance. We are not listing these names because of their accomplishments in life, or their notability for Wikipedia purposes. We are listing their names because of their central importance to the event written about. Obviously the most obscure person leaves a vacuum in the world that they inhabited when they die. In this event a very large number of people died at once by the same cause—conflagration in an "artists' warehouse". I don't see any distinction between this disaster and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Lives have names and an article of this nature should list names, even if the listing of those names does not seem to serve any purpose now or ten years in the future. We are not all-knowing. Our job is to dispassionately compile relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bus stop. Also, somewhat tangential, but also related: when I read articles about serial killers and such, we typically list the names of the victims. Most of those victims, on their own, are not notable. So, this article is really no different. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

For example, see Boston Strangler. And John Wayne Gacy. And many others. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In many cases -- see John Wayne Gacy, above -- we even list the un-named victims! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should start an RfC on this issue. Bus stop and Joseph A. Spadaro make good points, and I haven't seen any editor other than EEng express strong disagreement about including a victim list in this article. Funcrunch (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging TAnthony who posted earlier on the page about including a victim list. Funcrunch (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of the list of victims in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting article when I assumed there would be a similar list here. I think readers expect to see a list of victims in some form unless the size is prohibitive. Besides examples listed previously like UpStairs Lounge arson attack and various serial killers, there is also Passengers of the RMS Titanic and even Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. The articles for various plane crashes note victims but I don't know if the majority are more selective, like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, or not. I would also guess that the fact that the Sandy Hook victims were minors is a contributing factor to why we're not painstakingly listing all of them beyond those essential to the narrative. I'm sort of rolling my eyes at the "10 years in the future" angle because victim names are as relevant as any other detail about these crimes, now and forever, and if we're listing one-shot guest stars on TV shows, or bibliographies of notable authors whose books do not have their own articles, we should be listing victims of notable crimes.— TAnthony^Talk 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A separate list article would be perfectly appropriate. EEng 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A separate list for 36 names?? Haha are you really that opposed to having them here?— TAnthony^Talk 04:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A separate list article for 36 non-notable names would be as far away from "perfectly appropriate" as you can get. The only reason someone would advocate that would be the inevitability that the new article would be deleted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason it would be deleted. With five exceptions every entry in Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, which you linked, is nonnotable. EEng 07:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia can tell you with 100% certainty that such an article would definitely be deleted. (As it should be!) And in the deletion discussion, the option of "merge into main article" would ultimately be selected. There is absolutely no comparison of the 9-11 article listing victims and this proposed article listing victims. The 9-11 incident was much more significant than this California fire. And the 9-11 incident had some 3,000 deaths; this had only 36. Not even close in scope or magnitude. A separate article would never survive a deletion discussion. Also, why on earth would you think that a separate article is fine, but that the inclusion of names in this article is not? Makes no sense whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, you miss the point about deleting articles. It's not that the names included in the article are notable (or non-notable). The issue is whether the article topic itself is notable. As a stand-alone topic/article. "List of people killed in the 9-11 attacks" is a notable topic. "List of people killed in the 2016 Oakland fire" is not a notable topic. It's the topic (as a stand-alone topic) that needs to be notable. Not the names within the respective article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There ABSOLUTELY needs to be a list of victims on the page. It would hardly take up any room. It is very disrespectful to say only the musicians should be noted. I could see not listing them if there were hundreds, but 36 is perfectly acceptable. Lists like these are on MANY pages of similar events where large losses of life occurred. HesioneHushabye (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since there is still only one editor strongly opposing inclusion of a victims list, I've added it as a sidebar, in the same format as on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.— TAnthony^Talk 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire doesnt list the names, so there is some precedent for not listing. i added a specific external link to the names to that article. I think it might be nice to add the actual list to that article as well. it seems fitting, not as a memorial per se, but as a visual reminder of the loss, to make sure the event is portrayed with proper respect. after all, if people dont die in these fires, they are not really that important, so they actually are what make the fires notable. thus their names matter.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You are correct about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire article not listing victim names. However, I suspect that was (and still is) due to the sheer number of victims (in that case, 146 deaths). The Station nightclub fire, with 100 deaths, also does not list the victim names. (But it does have an "external link" that provides the list.) Again, I think that the sheer number of names/victims is the critical distinction in those articles and the reason for which names are not actually listed in the articles proper. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Separate the "Building Section"

I wonder if the fire department response should be removed from the building and added to a separate section completely. There is not a page about the Ghost Ship itself that I could find so maybe it should be rewritten to separate the building and first responders actions. P37307 (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless the building itself was clearly WP:NOTABLE itself prior to the fire (which I rather doubt but I wouldn't say I'd be shocked to my core to discover otherwise), that would not be appropriate, as it would essentially serve no other function than to be a WP:POVFORK of this article. Even if notable, there's still a pretty strong argument for keeping all of the content centralized here, especially insofar as we are nowhere near an article size where a split would be recommended under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I added information about the prevention of a rescue attempt and it was removed.

Oakland Fire Department Battalion Chief James Bowron has publicly stated that he intentionally prevented a rescue attempt during the Ghost Ship fire, by withholding from the firefighters the knowledge that there were a large number of people trapped in the burning building.

His statements are clearly documented.

The prevention of a rescue attempt is a very significant event in the fire, and I believe people deserve to know about it.

So I added a sentence describing this, and my edit was removed. I think this is very inappropriate, because there is no question about the truth of what I added.

How do I get this information onto the page and prevent anyone from censoring it?

A friend of mine narrowly avoided dying in the fire, and several of her friends died there. I have been talking with parents of the victims and they want the full truth to come out. I believe that this information is part of that truth and should be included in the Wikipedia page. Russ Tilleman (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I also want to point out that at the end of the page, there is currently a statement that the fire was caused by "purely negligence". The official Origin and Cause report stated 4 possible causes: electrical, candles/incense, cigarette/lighter and arson. It stated it was not possible to tell which of these caused the fire. So calling it negligence is not based on facts, and is prejudicial against the defendants in the criminal trial. I believe that statement should be removed or corrected.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted and added his quote. It is clear, this is his interview, his words, and not actionable. P37307 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The same guy removed this change as well, claiming that the victims were already dead. The user gave no documentation for this assertion. In fact, I discussed the autopsy results with an MD who told me that it seems likely that some or all of the victims were alive and could have been extracted from the building if OFD had made the effort. Can we get this guy blocked from repeatedly removing the changes?Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the smoke conditions and the probability, the survivability of what the smoke was doing, if we were going to find anybody, they were going to be in that initial 25 to 50 feet from the front door and the initial hose stretch. That is from the same source the newly-added material was cherrypicked from. To paraphrase it, it says that no would be alive further into the building, with the implication that it wasn’t worth risking firemen’s lives by encouraging them to go further. The source goes on to describe pulling back from the fire...not long before the roof caved in. Adding a fuller description of the fire from this POV might have improved the article, but picking one bit out of context can not. Qwirkle (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that even matters at this point, (yes it matters to the victims, community and family but not as far as documenting the event goes on wikipedia, no disrespect intended.) The edit Russ Tillerman made should stand because it is 1) fact, backed up with a citation, that he chose not to send firefighters in after learning many people were in, 2) he said so himself in his interview and gave why, and a further edit included the quote. I think that should cover this part of that horrible event and subject. P37307 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Mr. TillEman’s assertion is not backed at all by the source cited. Mr. Tilleman (assuming the wikiteur here came by the name honestly) says that someone admitted to stopping a rescue attempt, while the source shows that they discounted the possibility of a rescue attempt from ...correctly.

As for this “not mattering”, items sub judice seldom don’t matter to somebody, and when someone who has never posted before, and claims that he has friends which were affected by the artcle’s subject...well, let’s just say that’s a big damned trout in the milk. Qwirkle (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You edited your discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=next&oldid=887675876 added an entire paragraph as response to my comment and marked it as minor in violation of WP:MINOR. That's not fair for honest debate. P37307 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be a liethe thing that is not, as your diff there clearly shows. The edit marked minor was, in fact, minor. Qwirkle (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone opened a discussion up about this at the Administrators' noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Some_eyeballs_on_2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire.P37307 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The source does not support stating that "no attempt was made to rescue the people inside." That's not what the source says. We also need to include the fire commander's rationale for his decision as necessary context for that decision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the article accordingly, noting that firefighters did enter the building and push at least a couple dozen feet inside, before making the decision that it was unsafe to attempt further entry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I like your edit. It adds more context. In my edit I added the chief's quote to add rationale to try to calm the conflict. P37307 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. (Semi-COI: Wildland firefighting and management is part of my job.) I absolutely appreciate how angry and sad people might be that firefighters have to make tough decisions about life and risk, but we need to be absolutely clear about how and why those decisions get made. It is rarely, if ever, as simple as was originally portrayed. Yes, we firefighters sign up to risk our lives for the protection of life and property, but we are also trained to make informed, rational decisions about which risks to take. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As for Qwirkle's accusation that I am not using my real name, I invite him/her to meet me in front of the Ghost Ship building and I will be happy to provide my ID in person. It is a short trip from my house. And I think is accurate to say that "no attempt was made to rescue people inside" because the fire crews didn't even know there were people inside. Because Bowron didn't tell them.Russ Tilleman (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What you "think" is accurate is not relevant; what is relevant is what is in reliable sources. The reliable source cited clearly does not say no attempt was made to rescue people, and to the contrary, notes that at least four fire companies went inside the building to fight the fire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bowron's speech is a primary source, and Wikipedia uses primary sources only for completely uncontroversial things like which college someone attended or the city where a company is headquartered or the name of its current CEO. This content is highly contentious and a Wikipedia editor is simply not allowed to analyze Bowron's speech, frame it in a negative way using innuendo, and place it into this article. That is a major policy violation. Please read and study WP:BLP. Have any independent secondary reliable sources commented on Bowron's speech? If so, what did they say about it? Those of us who are Wikipedia editors are not allowed to analyze his speech on our own. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the follow paragraph be added to the article, as edited by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk): Battalion Chief James Bowron decided not to announce over the radio to his crews that an estimated 50 to 75 people were trapped inside the burning building. Bowron stated in the interview with Firehouse magazine, "Had I made that announcement that there might have been 50, 60, 70 people in there, my crews—which had already pushed and pushed and pushed as hard as they could— would have probably made decisions or pushed themselves to a further limit which may have caused potential loss of life for the fire department on our end."

I vote yes P37307 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is original research interpretation of a primary source framed to make Bowron look bad, and is forbidden by our WP:BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, Cullen328, does WP:BLP policy apply here since it is quoting his actual actions and his statement as an offical to an industry magazine? If so, what section? Grant it, the original edit did make it appear bad but the subsequent edits does not. This is not a BLP article. P37307 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

P37307, please read WP:BLP, one of our most important policies. That policy applies to every single article and every single talk page on Wikipedia, without exception. We are forbidden from interpreting or spinning or cherry-picking a primary source like Bowron's speech to make Bowron look bad. We are Wikipedia editors not experts in firefighting or analysis of catastrophes. If secondary sources comment on and analyze his speech, then perhaps that could be included. But no such sources have been furnished here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking that as true and in the spirit of discussion, what if persona were taken out and it reworded as such, Fire department officials on the scene decided not to announce over the radio that an estimated 50 to 75 people were trapped inside the burning building because they feared it could have made firefighters, already pushed to the limit, to probably make decisions or pushed themselves to a further limit which may have caused potential loss of life for the fire department. P37307 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Were the entire article paraphrased and analyzed, expertly (i.e. not by Wikipejans writing as such), you could make a case for inclusion, maybe, but this started out as a hatchet job, and is obviously intended to continue as a hatchet job. Yes, a person’s own full words, written or spoken to a knowledgeable audience, might fall afoul of Wiki’s BLP policies if dismembered and tossed to a general audience unexplained. Qwirkle (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't doing a hatchet job, which is why I added the quote to give his rationale. P37307 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I accept that may not have been your intention.

Hell, they say, is paved with good ones. Qwirkle (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw the original edit and then your revert and thought I could make a bridge to suit both. I've only edited this page on one instance and that was when the judge threw out the plea deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=854407345&oldid=854406924 I don't have an emotional or local dog in this fight. I do agree the first edit wasn't complete or fair but I think it is an important part of the narrative. I just downloaded and am reading the office report and conclusions. If you look at my edits, I have not one subject or local other than attempting to make these pages better, and without drama P37307 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in taking you at your word that your initial impulse here was to forge a middle-ground solution, and indeed, I agree with you that there's a reasonable argument to be made that this is significant additional context that may eventually find a home in the article. But the wording suggested above, even in your most recent suggestion, still involves too much speculation/OR in rendering the relevant details. Indeed, there's also a strong argument to be made that unless and until there is secondary reporting discussing this issue, the detail of Bowron's public statement is insufficiently WP:DUE and/or too problematic for inclusion, based on that one primary source. Even if it were decided to include it, proposals above are significantly far off from where they'd need to be with regard to WP:NPOV. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The road to hell*. I don't think there are enough good intentions in the world to pave *all* of hell with. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

This did not start out as a hatchet job. It started out with a statement of fact. That Bowron intentionally did not tell the firefighters that there were people trapped in the building, which he admitted to in the Firehouse article. The current text is very misleading and doesn't explain how OFD missed all 36 people who were trapped in the building. Fortunately, even if Wikipedia doesn't include this information, it will likely come out during the trial.Russ Tilleman (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Russ Tilleman, any uninvolved editor can look in the article history, read your original edit, and decide for themselves whether or not you were attempting a hatchet job. Neither you nor I possess a crystal ball and therefore we cannot predict what will or will not come out in the trial. Wikipedia editors do not make predictions. If this is discussed at the trial and if reliable sources discuss it at that time, then it may be appropriate to add it to this article at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, this is also increasingly looking like an article that Russ Tilleman should not be editing. If we accept at face value the statements A friend of mine narrowly avoided dying in the fire, and several of her friends died there. I have been talking with parents of the victims and they want the full truth to come out. I believe that this information is part of that truth and should be included in the Wikipedia page, then we have an editor who is personally involved and should probably be requesting edits on the talkpage instead of making them directly in the article. I wouldn't go so far as to cite COI or RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but the motivations here are getting pretty close to those lines. Grandpallama (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. P37307 (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE material removed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)...Is it acceptable for a user to remove another user's comments from the talk page? Yupp, you are accusing someone of Murder 3 without at least a grand jury agreeing with you, you are God-damned right it is. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is about my talk page,Qwirkle, I appreciate you removing that libelous information Russ Tilleman posted on my personal talk page, which was inappropriate. I tried, as I said above, to make an edit as a compromise when Tillman and Qwirkle first had their edit and revert and then let these discussions play out. That's all. I believe Wikipedia articles are best when content is discussed that is of this nature. I'm not new to editing but I am nowhere a scholar at the many pages of policy and guidelines. I agree with talk that something is looking personal and Tilleman needs to back away from this edit and I think let the Support/Oppose to my proposal rule the day on this edit. P37307 (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The owners of the building

There should be more information about the owner of the building, Chor Ng, and anyone representing them, such their children as Kai Ng or Eva Ng. This was a huge disaster that killed many people, and such information should not be hidden. I don't know their culperably based on the article, for instance, when landlords are supposed to be responsible for any fixing or maintance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)