This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Architecture C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Miami C‑class Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

"Apartment block" is a phrase virtually unknown in American English. Per Wiki policy, the article should be in the variety of English of the location of the event, or in the most neutral language possible. I would never have thought to search for this article by this title. Recommend changing to "apartment building," or perhaps "residential building" if they were condos. The latter term is what the New York Times is using, for example. Moncrief (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we should rename the article to fall in line with American English per Wiki policy. However, here in Miami where the event has taken place, we refer to this building as a "condominium" or a "condo building". I believe that would be more appropriate than "apartment building", as that would imply a different type of building and ownership. --ItsGrrreat (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Eg., Google search gives the following, condo seems to be “obligatory” part... — Pietadè (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condo building would be more accurate. I didn't realize at first that they were condos. I can imagine "residential building" being agreed on as a more neutral term. At any rate, it's clear that "apartment block" is awful and has to go. It sounds like a city block of apartments (as in, bounded by four streets) collapsed, to an American ear. Moncrief (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article per strong consensus here. I have no objection if consensus changes to move it to "Champlain Towers South collapse" or something similar, it really depends on what the news media start calling it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of year

I think the title is still off. Should probably have the year at the start of the title. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changed this. Now it is in-line with the titling of similar articles. SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That probably should have been proposed and discussed here before the move. Are there other condominium collapses in Surfside to be disambiguated? General Ization ^Talk 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And has now been moved back, in line with my thinking on the question. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And one has to be especially vigilant with roof-repairers...;-) — Pietadè (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, started the article in etwi at first, on the wave of BBC World News, as "Miami building collapse", checking at first were/are there any earlier events of similar kind, didn't find...
So, if there are any similar events (in the same (broad) area) anticipated, a number in front of the heading would be appropriate, IMHO (like in Italian Wars), otherwise, what's the point? — Pietadè (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the BBC website uses "residential complex" and "apartment building", but neither "flats" nor "condominium". So American English. kencf0618 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I initially created the page with the year. However, there has never been a collapse in Surfside of any significance before this event. So why exactly is it needed? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name

Eliminate condominium. Too complex. Unnecessary. Not supported by reliable sources as the title. CNN and TV news do not say "condominium" or even "condo". Likewise, we wouldn't have a "San Francisco rental apartment building collapse" or a "Miami time share building collapse". A building is a building. Corona80 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe important to note that people lived there, and the term condominium conveys that idea. ie it wasn't a generic building used for warehousing, storage, etc. Slinde99 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surfside building collapse.

• Support. I wouldn't oppose an addition of Florida or USA. Corona80 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: What if the building was converted to rentals (usually rentals to condo, not vice versa). Would the title be Surfside Rental Building collapse"? No. So leave out condo. Corona80 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The headline at this moment at CNN.com is "51 missing after condo partly collapses" and the subhead is "At least one person is dead and 51 who are assumed to reside in the Florida condo are unaccounted for, official says" (emphasis added). General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise at cbsnews.com: "Video shows boy being pulled from rubble after Florida condo building collapse". [1] General Ization ^Talk 18:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And AP: "Many feared dead after Florida beachfront condo collapses". [2] The title is sourced and follows conventions in media sources. We do not need to disambiguate Miami to avoid confusion with Miami, Ohio, which has no beachfront properties, or one outside the US; it is linked. General Ization ^Talk 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (were there any, say, bistros, heel bars, etc., on the ground floor/ground storey...?) — Pietadè (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  And, accordingly, should there be categories à la Condo(minium) collapses by year, state, continent, death toll, etc....? ;-) — Pietadè (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support taking out "condominium." And also support adding "Florida" as is common in US place names that are not widely known. So, I'm voting specifically for "2021 Surfside, Florida building collapse" or some minor variation of that. Moncrief (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Edited to add: Neutral. It looks now as if the death toll is going to be pretty high -- higher than expected when I wrote the above. The year will probably not be necessary. And possibly not the state either, depending on how infamous this gets. I think I'd say for now that I don't know what the right name should be. (One hopes we won't still be voting and arguing about the best name six months from now, a la the article about January 6th at the Capitol...) Moncrief (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

„2021 Surfside“ — seems particularly confusing, at least for me (surf+side). — Pietadè (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surfside is the name of the town within which the structure is located. General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y, made an article on this in etwi, yet for "untrained" eyes (and hind) behind, this (1921, 2021, etc.) can hint on whatsoever (say, if one is going to transfer this article via translate.google.com into some other language)... — Pietadè (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In American English, and particularly with regard to the architecture of Miami and other resort cities, "condominium" is as much a noun as it is an adjective. An entire, large building primarily containing condominium units (even if possibly containing retail, restaurant and other uses as well) is generally known as a condominium or condo (as are its individual units). Hence the widespread use of the term in US media to refer to the structure. The title correctly identifies the building type, as opposed to an apartment building, or a commercial or industrial structure. It also conveys that it is a large, hence high-density, structure with the potential for a high death toll in a collapse. General Ization ^Talk 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cf. eg. with a more general term (for general audience) as "building" (Lexico / MW / Collins / Cambridge, etc.)... — Pietadè (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a building, but commercial, industrial and low-density residential structures (also buildings) generally don't have the same potential for loss of life in a collapse (excluding large office towers, and this building is more comparable to those than typical residential structures in the US). General Ization ^Talk 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(As an illustration, an ocean liner is a type of boat (or ship), but in the context of a disaster a boat sinking implies something less.) General Ization ^Talk 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on language and cultural space too, etwi version in the title/heading covers both condo(minium)/building, and specifies à la with multiple/more than one entrance(s). — Pietadè (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is "etwi"? You keep using that word as if people here know what you're talking about. Moncrief (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 20:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, earlier it is linked.
Seems appropriate to ask for some kind of protection to this page/article. — Pietadè (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Surfside CONDOMINIUM collapse has the right amount of words, syllables and alliteration. But three words beats four words, whatever the title. A weak oppose to what's proposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. kencf0618 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Extremely generic.  🐱💬 05:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not only is this too generic, it will possibly mislead people. It seems there is already confusion over the city name "Surfside" and this makes it seem like that's the name of the building. You wouldn't name the article "Miami building collapse" if it were a few miles away, right? A quick search for other building collapse articles has either the name of the building or the year and city it happened in. I feel the same should be done here. lukini (talk | contribs) 19:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support InedibleHulk's proposal for conciseness and accuracy. Love of Corey (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second name proposal

What about Champlain Towers collapse or Champlain Towers South collapse? In line with for example Grenfell Tower fire. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to say if that name will be the WP:COMMONNAME. Currently it's not even in the running. Moncrief (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - that should only become the title if it becomes the common name. Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M' poor eyesight can read it as "Champaign" (Ls and ls, Is and is). — Pietadè (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that relevant to anything? Moncrief (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple: "Champlain" (especially in red font) is/was not so easy to read correctly, perhaps I'm not the only one (the simpler the better?) — Pietadè (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are truly one of the oddest Wikipedia editors I've encountered in my 17 years here. Moncrief (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, indeed! Shall cover the topic on Y'r talk page, if Y don't mind (how can Y, technically)22:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarify in Florida?

Suggest 2021 Surfside, Florida condominium building collapse or Surfside, Florida condominium building collapse, but probably best to leave it as is for a week or so to avoid too many redirects. Facts707 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way too wordy at this point. Plus, "Surfside" isn't exactly well known as a city/town name, so distinguishing this from, say, the one in California isn't all that necessary. Love of Corey (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many are saying that the videos posted of a building collapsing is not that same building. I added a questionable label, but something to monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.242.202 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing video shows moment building collapses in Florida, Hollywood?
Currently viewing live in BBC, from the screen..., ~99 missing...
58 minutes ago: Miami building collapse leaves 99 people unaccounted for (about 1/2 of the whole structure?) (for those not familiar with BBC politics: they do change the title/heading (and the content), yet the URI remains unchanged for some (unknown) time).
Smth similar to bank account link — the link remains the same, the content yet not, one may dream... — Pietadè (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the label. The local Fox News and CBS affiliates in Miami should have been able to recognize the view as showing the correct structure, and we have no reason to deem them unreliable. General Ization ^Talk 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The east section (closest to the beach) of the L-shaped building collapsed. Facts707 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What does that have to do with the video? General Ization ^Talk 04:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should replace the video with this video https://www.youtube.com/embed/iSwcf0IEntI?start=5 Because in this video there is a broader view of the disaster from other angles. אדומיניק (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original Youtube link. It's important that we use the least-edited version available of any video we cite, and to, whenever possible, make sure that the provenance of the video is clearly known and reported. This obvious composite of several video sources does not clearly identify many of them, and so violates that principle. The Fox 13 video seems to be the most authoritative version. General Ization ^Talk 17:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently (23:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)) "partially collapsed at about 1:30 a.m. EDT on June 24, 2021." kind of disregards "9 secs later" for the following part — Pietadè (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. The entire event started and ended at approximately 0130. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related (in which way, remains unknown) or not, there is/are still standing parts, the fate of which can currently only speculated — Pietadè (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of the still-standing portion of the tower will be addressed here as part of the aftermath of the building collapse, whether it falls on its own, is demolished as unsafe, or is rehabilitated (as unlikely as that may be). General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial doesn't seem like the right word. A section of the building completely collapsed. --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the structure as a whole did not collapse; this makes it a partial collapse from a disaster response and forensic engineering perspective. The fact that only a section of the building collapsed, shearing away from another portion of the structure, will probably prove to be significant. General Ization ^Talk 22:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What similar incidents have been termed "partial collapses"? --RelativeRisk1945 (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two examples: 2020 Brooklyn gym building collapse,1985 Wedbush Building collapse in Los Angeles. They are fairly rare, which is part of the reason that the correct terminology is important. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 partial collapse (under construction) in Houston. Partial collapses of buildings under construction are much more common since the stability of the structure's design is unproven and poor engineering or execution of just one element (e.g., a load-bearing pier or beam) can cause instability. General Ization ^Talk 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase, "...as many as 159 missing", is, I think, not being used well here. It says "at least 35 injured" but "as many as 159 missing". As many as sets a maximum while at least sets a minimum. If it's a matter of the 159 missing being confirmed, just write 159 missing. I'll be changing it if no one responds. Primergrey (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources are either saying 159 or "up to 159" (it varies by source). It's unclear whether 159 is a final, reliable number of the missing (it was 99 just last night), but it's clear we should no longer say "at least 159", which is the logical opposite of "up to 159". Seems to me "as many as 159" just about sums up what we know now. General Ization ^Talk 00:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Cava: "[159 people] have been identified as possibly being on the site... So those are people that maybe live there, but we don't know whether they were there at the time." [3] General Ization ^Talk 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would not insinuate that the 159 could be the maximum death toll. In addition, it was not possible to contact these 159 to ascertain their whereabouts. And they were in any way tied to that building by third persons. The number of 159 will rather rise, for example due to undocumented immigrants and because people do things like having affairs and they rather not tell where they're spending the night. For these reasons, I'd write something like "according to ____, the fate of 159 individuals, who are assumed to have stayed at the building, is unknown".--Keimzelle (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Mayor Cava has indicated that the number 159 represents those who were believed to have been in the building who have not been located elsewhere. Presumably this will already have accounted for previously unknown residents, guests and/or visitors, after interviewing known residents and building management. I don't think there's any need to twist ourselves into pretzels to arrive at a wording that will never be proven incorrect and need to be changed. As the information is updated, we will update the article. It is still most likely that this figure (the missing, versus the dead, located and/or rescued) will go down, rather than up, as people are found to be in one of the three latter groups. It certainly will not remain the same, as some (probably large) number of them will be found as either survivors or casualties. General Ization ^Talk 17:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official count now at 5 dead and 156 missing. [4][5] General Ization ^Talk 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reading this article and saw that the Second Impeachment of Donald Trump and January 6 Commission were related articles. In what way is this tragedy related to those two events?

2601:243:481:A680:748A:60C1:78D1:4B54 (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some drive-by vandalism/trolling. Whatever you saw it's not present in the latest version. Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I've reviewed every edit made to this article, and specifically reviewed its status just before and after 0630 UTC this morning. Links to either of the articles you mention have never been added or removed from this article, in the "See also" section or elsewhere. You must have been mistaken. Perhaps you saw the In the News section of the Wikipedia main page, as it may have recently contained items related to all three topics. General Ization ^Talk 08:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity the OP is surely referring to the related articles feature of the mobile site (and maybe apps?). I've never bothered to look into how it works but it sometimes offers odd suggestions like these. I don't think there is much we can do about what it suggests. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [6] [7] for an example. (External link as I couldn't be bothered dealing with the UI elements.) Also forgot to mention but 2601 if it concerns you you will need to contact the Wikipedia Foundation since as I said in fairly sure there is little or nothing we can do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the addition of this 2015 photo, further down the article, in order to show what the building looked like pre-collapse. User:General Ization is of the opinon that it adds little. Would appreciate some opinions on this. Wodgester (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I don't think it adds much versus images already here, and those available at our linked sources. An image like this might be very helpful, but I'm generally hesitant to post screenshots of content from mapping and/or satellite imaging services to Wikimedia Commons as I think it isn't really fair use under the terms of CC-BY-SA. I'm guessing media are paying royalties for satellite and other images used in "before and after" montages. General Ization ^Talk 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Phillip Samuel: Seems totally non-intuitive to me. Why would we discuss potential causes of an event in the body before we describe the event that they potentially caused, and which is the actual subject of the article? If anything, the potential causes, I believe, still belong at the end of the article because their relevance is, at this point, still speculative (albeit speculation by experts). We should expose the known facts first. General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, since you suggest that the potential causes are part of the background (though I believe their actual relevancy remains to be seen), I suggest demoting the section so it actually becomes part of the Background section. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And have boldly done so. General Ization ^Talk 00:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the possible causes section should be a distinct section at the very bottom. I agree that the collapse should be immediately discussed. It is my view that the possible causes section should be merged under one 'Background' section, as the former section simply elaborates on the latter (which is the building, its repairs and underlying problems). Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre to discuss the possible causes of a collapse even before that collapse is reported. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'possible causes' section is more or less an elaboration on the background on the buildnig itself. It should be completley merged under Background with no subheading. As the causes haven't been definitely determined, it is improper to have a separate section and speculate on what possibly caused the collapse. Any future investigation that determines what the causes are can be put under a separation 'investigation' heading at the bottom in the future. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose the inclusion of any of the discussion of potential causes in any section that isn't headed "Possible causes", because that has the effect of elevating their relevancy to a certainty. Keep in mind that, especially now that litigation is known to have started, it will probably be months, if not years, before there is a final determination and we know the true cause. This would make these potential causes, and the subsequent investigation of them, part of the Aftermath section. General Ization ^Talk 01:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: we are not speculating about possible causes. We are reporting on expert speculation as widely reported by our sources, in many cases now as the headline on this event. General Ization ^Talk 01:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, hopefully without belaboring the point, that you are confusing the Background section, which provides the background of the structure in order to understand what it is, where it is, and what has happened to it recently, with the background concerning the collapse, which we do not yet know with certainty and will not know for some time. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any factor that is definitely determined by an investigation and ligitation as causing the collapse should be at the bottom of the article under an investigation/aftermath section. Possible causes should not be under an 'investigation' section unless it has been reported that investigations definitely found them to be root causes of the collapse. Otherwise, background information on the building and already reported underlying structural issues should be in the beginning under the 'background' heading. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for more input here before acting on your recommendation. If we were to try to establish a consensus version based on just the three of us who have contributed to the discussion so far, I think it pretty clear that your solution would not be that version. General Ization ^Talk 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "Possible causes" of a tragedy are looked for once the basic facts are known, and the article should keep that logic. Moreover, the investigation will take months, perhaps years, with each report generating new assertions and paragraphs. Kahlores (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Let's take for example the Grenfell Tower fire article, which seems well-structured. It only deals with the "Direct causes" at section 6, after 5. "Aftermath". Which makes sense: first the event is described, then the investigation about it. However, an element that goes in Philip's favor and may help bring consensus here, is that a basic description of key elements in the building is covered in section 1 "Background". Such a divide could be used here: the building had such and such characteristics we'll delve into later in the article. Kahlores (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your suggestion to heart, I have moved some of the more specific information about the building that collapsed to the Collapse section, and the information on the recent recertification process and roof repairs to the demoted Possible causes section. Could I ask you to clarify where you think that section should reside (for now)? General Ization ^Talk 02:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just like you said: the potential causes, I believe, still belong at the end of the article because their relevance is, at this point, still speculative which is also the logic used for the Grenfell Tower fire (section 5 is "Aftermath", section 6 is "Direct causes"). Kahlores (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ag212021: Let's not, please, start listifying the information concerning each casualty as they are identified. If, as we sadly expect, the number of casualties will rapidly and significantly increase, this will become an exceptionally long section of the article, and consensus generally at articles concerning events (natural disasters, mass shootings, etc.) with high death tolls is to not have a section naming all of the casualties (in part for privacy reasons with regard to victims and their families, also WP:NOTNEWS). While they are in the single digits, it's fine to list them in a single sentence, as you did before. General Ization ^Talk 03:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also almost inevitably leads to the addition of mini-bios for each of the victims (as newspapers often produce), which further bloats the article, moves us away from our primary focus, the event itself, and potentially exposes the victims and their families to unwanted attention. See also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I note WWGB's removal of the names of the four named casualties, noting that even that requires local consensus, and reminding me that we have an essay on the topic: Wikipedia:Victim lists. An alternative view is here: Wikipedia:Casualty lists. General Ization ^Talk 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know the policy on name list for casualties of events! I'll check before adding information like that next time. Once we have a full list of casualties, would it be considered appropriate to list genders/ages and such? And is there any situation in which we'd want a list of names? Lektricfergus 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektricfergus: It's something that can certainly be discussed here, especially once the final tally is known (and sadly, but realistically, it shouldn't be long now) so we are not adding the information one or two entries at a time. Some articles have a list of names (though I happen to be in the camp that opposes them, per the thinking expressed at Wikipedia:Victim lists). In any case, it would require discussion to establish consensus (probably in the form of an RfC, which typically takes a while, at least a week). Thanks for your patience (but there is no deadline). General Ization ^Talk 18:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektricfergus: If this (compiling a list of data, at least, concerning fatalities) was something you were interested in and feel comfortable working on, there's no reason why you (or anyone else) couldn't develop it in your personal sandbox as information is released. That way, if consensus is found to include such a list it will already exist (though there's always the possibility it might not be used). General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the clarification. I'm happy to compile an ongoing list of names/ages of victims and sources for that information, should consensus be established. Lektricfergus talk 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: Good idea, thank you! And thank you for being patient with me, as well; I'm still learning the ropes. Lektricfergus talk 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article which discusses how building collapses are extremely rare in the U.S. and that the way in which the building collapsed was unique and stuff like that that I think the article really should include. Half the reason this collapse is so notable is because it's such an extraordinarily rare occurrence, and the article does a poor job of explaining that. However, I'm not sure how exactly to integrate this information into the article. Would anyone be willing to take a stab at incorporating some of this information? Mlb96 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article but, as you say, very tricky. I think John Pistorino's thoughts (under the 3rd subheading) are probably more worthy of integration than those of Glenn Bell, who, although qualified, is really only observing from a distance and has little more specific information than we do. Pistorino, though, was involved in devising the "recertification" process we mention in Possible causes and sounds like he may be involved in an investigation. Wodgester (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed or appropriate here, as I wouldn't expect someone would come to this article to learn about building collapses generally. Among our citations we have links to some explainers (e.g., [8]) that may help. A better place would be Structural integrity and failure#Champlain Towers (which would definitely benefit from some expansion). General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ping @Mlb96 since the comment was a while ago. Feel free to remove.) General Ization ^Talk 20:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read/(mainly listened) just an/a article/video — RUSS BYNUM and FREIDA FRISARO. Another body found in condo rubble raises death toll to 5 with 156 unaccounted for. AP — (“Sorry, this content is not available in your region.”) — took me some 3 or so attempts to read this via Tor... — Pietadè (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the WMTW-TV Web site you linked to doesn't currently appear in the article, so I'm not sure why it's relevant to mention this here. Various Web hosts and content providers may place restrictions on international regions from which their content may be accessed. There is no way for editors here to predict or test availability from a particular region if we are not in that region. General Ization ^Talk 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added "via Tor", and it is quite easy to find/look, from which country Tor accesses the article. — Pietadè (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link (https://www.youtube.com/embed/iSwcf0IEntI?start=5) is no doubt edited (the accident itself is repeated).
Apparently not the first and not the least of this kind... — Pietadè (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original Youtube link. It's important that we use the least-edited version available of any video we cite, and to, whenever possible, make sure that the provenance of the video is clearly known and reported. This obvious composite of several video sources does not clearly identify many of them, and so violates that principle. The Fox 13 video seems to be the most authoritative version. General Ization ^Talk 17:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the footage of the accident: why the hell the centre part was the first to go, in some countries these kind of structures are regulative-ly binded to be binded (r-ly binded to be binded) to each other, so, about 9 secs later it became more apparent that's not the case (to those, fellow humans, who were inhabiting the left side), and, has anyone tried to master, say, a Lego building (no need to achieve M, PhD in engineering) of similar kind. Just a thought. — Pietadè (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And2 — there were living lights in these dying parts of the "thing", as a mark of living people, should this be mentioned? — Pietadè (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If tensions build up, for example due to differential sinking of the building, I expect the fracture site to be near the middle. Doesn't surprise me at all. The larger the distance between two points, the bigger the difference in downward forces between the two points. These images help to explain it: http://www.seismicresilience.org.nz/topics/seismic-science-and-site-influences/earthquake-hazards/ground-settlement/ --Keimzelle (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The building was known to be and is already described as a residential building. I can't think of a good reason to report in this article that there were lights on in the building at 1:30 a.m., just prior to the collapse. General Ization ^Talk 16:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the "1:30" time that was here, the last reference I checked and added calls the start of the event "1:20", and calls out that the fire department was already engaged at "01:23"; so I adjusted the article. If more recent sources are more accurate, feel free to revert or further adjust - I have a feeling the early sources were rounding. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to give the Herald some extra credibility on this point. However, I think we need to find a better link. While the presentation of the timeline is interesting, it uses some advanced HTML features that may not reproduce properly on some browsers and mobile devices. It'd be better to use a source that makes this statement in its narrative content without all the special effects. General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: I've got this one from the same publisher: "the time that Miami-Dade Fire Rescue first responded to a call for help at the condominium tower" <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article252324218.html |access-date=27 June 2021}}</ref>. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that that story, which ran only hours after the original event, says that the first report of the collapse occurred at 0123 EDT rather than 0130. At some point, I think we should add brief content (probably one sentence) to the article to address the varying estimates as to the time the collapse occurred. This confusion is not uncommon (see 9/11); we should own it and address it, since so many sources, including many cited here, say 0130. General Ization ^Talk 20:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: I'm trying to find a more reliable/precise source, maybe "between 1:20 and 1:30". There is a live video of the collapse, but it doesn't have a visible timestamp. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for any specific result, would just like to be what is most accurate. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Let's see if others have thoughts on the question. General Ization ^Talk 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: As recently as 10 p.m. EDT this evening, writers for the Herald are still using phrases like "[the collapse] which occurred around 1:30 a.m. Thursday" ([9]). This leads me to think that they are, as you suspected, "rounding" to the nearest half-hour, which is not incorrect, just less precise. I'm not sure we shouldn't adopt the same approach, since the majority of our sources seem to be doing so. The difference between 0123 and 0130 is pretty much semantic to most readers. General Ization ^Talk 02:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"around 1:30" does seem to be the most leading time now. We'll probably get more precise information when the transcripts from 911 and the video timestamps are eventually published. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the time of the collapse here back to "approximately 1:30 a.m." to be consistent with nearly every cited source, but added a footnote to call attention to the fact that the exact time was apparently prior to 1:23 a.m. per the Herald's timeline. General Ization ^Talk 14:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to be at 4:33PM per this copy of the local state of emergency order: <https://documents.miamidade.gov/mayor/emergency-orders/06.24.21-surfside-state-of-emergency-declaration.pdf> — xaosflux ^Talk 20:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to its own section here on the Talk page since it doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion of the exact time of the collapse. General Ization ^Talk 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And added the citation to the content concerning Mayor Cava's declaration. General Ization ^Talk 21:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surfside now has a dedicated page to info about the tower, should we perhaps make more mention of it in the article rather than placing it in the external links? There's a lot of info they've collected that could be useful to someone, and putting that at the way bottom seems odd when it seems like a very useful page. Kasper221 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper221: The mayor's commitment to compile and publish the information on the town's Web site is already mentioned in the Aftermath section, and as an external link it belongs in the External links section. General Ization ^Talk 15:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. Not really enough in this Miami Herald article to justify adding it here, but it sounds like the nonprofit Cadena search team (trained in Israel, at least one member and his search dog from Mexico) could qualify for its own Wikipedia article. "Cadena has responded to more than 1,000 natural disasters and humanitarian crises in 26 countries since its founding in 2005". Seven team members (eight, including the dog) on-site in Surfside. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mathing this: 2021-2005 = 16 years. 16 * 365.25 = 5844 days -> 1000 disasters over 5844 days is one disaster every 5.844 days. That’s 1-2 per week. I doubt very much that they define disaster/crises the same way i do. Not saying they’re illegitimate, but the claim of aiding 1000 different things over 16 years seems a tad extraordinary to me. 75.163.146.225 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More information at https://cadena.ngo/en/. If their claim is illegitimate, they're awfully vocal about it. General Ization ^Talk 16:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that humanitarian crises are continuously occurring throughout the world, and can take less obvious forms, such as absence or failure of pumps to supply potable water to rural or remote villages, drought and famine. Relatively few of them regularly make the news in the "first world". "Responding" can take the form of sending equipment, supplies, and/or funds, not necessarily just people. General Ization ^Talk 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NY Post "developers of the Miami condo tower that collapsed were once accused of paying off local officials to get permits for the site — which needed $15 million in repairs just to bring it to code, a new report says".

https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/developers-of-fla-tower-were-accused-of-paying-off-officials/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:270a:6000:a170:cb38:c57f:3bad (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that shady backroom deals that apparently allegedly occurred prior to the building being built in the late 1970s or early 1980s are barely relevant to the collapse of the building in 2021. The NYPost seems to be weaving this and the $15 million figure for repairs to the modern building together to suggest a new scandal. The New York Post is generally sensationalist in its reporting. We should wait to see if this receives any significant coverage in more mainstream sources such as the Miami Herald. General Ization ^Talk 15:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What value are we adding listing in explicit detail (including a table) the citizenship of every missing person and confirmed casualty? I doubt that anyone is surprised well off people from South America were residing in a Miami Beach condo - that's true from South Point all the way to Aventura. Can we clean that up please? Paraguay's first lady's sister is probably notable enough for a sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Floridans or Americans in general would know this; I did not know. I wouldn't say I was surprised, but I certainly did not know. I live in Canada. — Diannaa (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaserLegs: As a procedural issue, almost never is an entire section or a significant element of an article removed here on Wikipedia just because one editor on a Talk page issues a vague statement such as "Can we clean that up please?" Assuming that (removal) is what you are suggesting, we have processes for proposing and establishing consensus for changes like this. See WP:RFC, and if you feel strongly about it, start one. General Ization ^Talk 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we don't generally decide whether to include facts (or not) based on how "surprising" they are, but more often on the degree of coverage those facts receive in reliable sources. The nationalities of the missing and the dead in this incident have received extensive coverage, in many cases being part of the headline, and can be expected to do so as more are announced. General Ization ^Talk 17:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary minutia and of limited encyclopedic value. I'm not going to fight that hard for it, I'll just make a note to come clean it up in December --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenships of those confirmed dead is useful info. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaserLegs: What might surprise you is the proportion of the currently 100,000 daily readers of this article (#30 of all pages viewed yesterday, #17 on 6/25) who are located somewhere outside the United States. We are often accused of being too quick to assume that our readers are American, or even speakers of English as a first language. Foreign nationals are naturally interested to know whether and/or how many of their citizens or even former citizens are involved in a tragedy receiving international coverage such as this. General Ization ^Talk 23:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples of articles about disasters that list the nationalities of victims. Nationality is something that is often covered in reportage of such events, and it is likely something our readers are hoping to learn when they visit our website. My opinion is that it should stay in permanently (or until such time as it is removed by consensus).

• Casualties of the September 11 attacks#Foreign deaths
• Pan Am Flight 103#Victims
• Costa Concordia disaster#Passengers and personnel— Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph Background: William M. Friedman & Associates Architects, Inc. was the architect for the project's 1979 contact drawings Should be: contract drawings BillW435 (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Fixed General Ization ^Talk 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit ... The partially collapsed condo building was built in 1981 by a team of Canadian Jewish developers headed by Nathan Reiber.

"The partially collapsed condo building at 8777 Collins Ave. was built in 1981 by a team of Canadian Jewish developers headed by Nathan Reiber, a lawyer."

https://thecjn.ca/surfside-florida-condo-collapse-has-jewish-canadian-roots/

SteveBenassi (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveBenassi: I don't see how the ethnicity and/or religion of the principals of the development company that built the building are relevant to an article about the collapse. Can you explain? Everything else is already presented (and sourced) in the Background section. General Ization ^Talk 22:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant and should not be omitted because "At least 35 of the missing were Jewish" ... Bias by Omission ... http://umich.edu/~newsbias/omissions.html ... If the developers were Saudi Muslims it would be in the news and on Wikipedia, media bias. ... Jews and Israel are prominent in the news media on this topic ... https://www.timesofisrael.com/deadly-building-collapse-in-florida-struck-a-growing-diverse-jewish-community/ ... https://www.jta.org/2021/06/25/united-states/the-deadly-building-collapse-in-surfside-struck-a-growing-diverse-jewish-community ... https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2021/06/28/a-response-to-surfside/ ... https://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/5172762/jewish/In-Surfside-Special-Afternoon-Prayer-Service-for-the-Missing-After-Nine-Victims-Found.htm ... SteveBenassi (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Israel are prominent in the article and media coverage because of the number of Jewish people, some of Israeli citizenship, who are known or presumed victims of the disaster. This has nothing to do with the people who built the building 40 years ago, people who have had no involvement in the building's management or maintenance for many years, and people who are not even mentioned in the Jewish publications you have linked in the paragraph above. If it is not important for them to mention the Jewish heritage of the builders, why should it be for us to do so? It is not evidence of bias to omit information which is irrelevant to the subject of this article (and, under the circumstances, would seem to me to suggest bias if we were to do so). General Ization ^Talk 01:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if the developers were Saudi Muslims it would be prominent in the Jewish news articles mentioned above, and would also be prominent on Wikipedia, this is white pro-western Judeo-Christian media bias, and there would be call for lawsuits against the Saudi developers. ... SteveBenassi (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Without consensus clearly expressed here, the ethnicity and/or religion of the developers of the building 40 years ago stays out of the article. As to whether lawsuits are undertaken, that is not our concern (other than reporting them, if and when they are). General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be mildly surprising to find a development between 1950 and 1990 in the area of Miami Beach that wasn't somehow connected with Jewish developers. Your analysis is a prime example of why we shouldn't call out the religion of the developers, and why the tagging of individuals with ethnicity or religion is strongly deprecated on Wikipedia. Would Presbyterians be similarly singled out? Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why mention "At least 35 of the missing were Jewish" ... SteveBenassi (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph stating that this is "domestic terrorism" according to "Many", in which the only source is Charlie Kirk, has no business in an encyclopedic article. Smithbcs (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. We are here to provide facts (about the collapse), not a platform for fringe theories that are irrelevant to the current disaster. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Besides, according to that source, Kirk expressed his theory on Friday, before much of anything was known as to any of the potential causes. Who knows if even he believes that now.) General Ization ^Talk 00:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]