Talk:Colectiv nightclub fire/Archive 1

Title
The article's title should be changed. Every sources (media, witnesses) report a fire caused by the pyrotechnics igniting the acoustic foam. LaZ0r (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, sensationalism is the only reason to put the explosion part of this drama in a headline/title. It started as a fire and was followed by a stampede, yet the usual suspects (Reuters, etc) are only putting the explosion in their headlines: probably as a click bait, deceiving hypothetical readers by implying possible terrorism... Shameful yet so usual nowadays. Sensi (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ page moved per the above and per the sources (e.g. BBC) that call it a fire. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've also removed the explosion-related categories. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge
In keeping with The Station nightclub fire article title, I started an article about this event at Club Colectiv nightclub fire. These two efforts should be merged. But which naming scheme is to be used? Binksternet (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking at all the nightclub fire article titles, it appears that Club Colectiv nightclub fire is more appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

International reaction cruft
Is there any need to include what David Cameron said about this? How are his comments (and others) relevant to this?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not saying I agree or disagree, but in articles about disasters, it is customary to give reactions of international leaders. It's customary, but I'm not a fan of it. That can let a lot of fringe in from unfriendly nations and leaders of opposition movements. Dcs002 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the usual deletionist arguments allow reactions from affected countries, for example, in this case, foreigners were killed. Other than that, reactions, including David Cameron, are mere condolences that add nothing to the investigation or aftermath. We see in this case that it was tacked onto a Tweet with another tragedy. If Britons had died in this fire, there would be Foreign Office press releases and statements, and the possibility of investigatory assistance or even discussions with Romania's leaders. That's the difference &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The reactions take up more space than explaining what actually happened and add nothing new to the story. AIR corn (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, the history of your contributions is full of edit wars. I tell you in good faith not to delete sections of this article without prior consultation between those who have created and contributed significantly to the article. Thank you. —
 * Might want to look up good faith. AIR corn (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what Ponta has to do with it
Neither the article nor the top English-language news stories I saw do anything to explain why a nightclub fire affected Romanian politics. What does a prime minister or a national political party have to do with a permit for a nightclub? (Please note I'm not trying to take a political position here, I'm asking that because I really don't know, and neither do most of the other people reading this) Wnt (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here from the front page myself and wondered why this sort of thing would be related to the government of a country needing to resign? Corruption seems to be implied, but isn't this sort of thing something that's more to do with an individual city's registrar or whoever deals out such permits? What does the entire government have to do with this? What are the protesters saying? I'm not trying to stir drama here either, I'm just genuinely curious as to what this has to do with the entire country's govermnent rather than the municipality's government. --Snowgrouse (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirding this. I read through the entire article and I'm still not entirely sure why this would lead to a Prime Minister resigning.  17:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As hard as it seems to be from an outside standpoint of view, this incident was the tipping point of tolerance for some romanians and has led to protests from groups of people that haven't normally stood ground until now (mostly young, educated, hard-working and good-faithed people) and was the first time in democratic history when people didn't ask for government resignation (actually that came sooner then expected in an effort to ... well, I'll keep subjective oppinions to myself -- enough to say that while the resignation was welcomed, the protests grew larger despite of that)... This was a protest against all parties (left, right, whatever) with the unique goal to request a change in how the political class as a full work... It must be understood that while in this particular incident you cannot say a PM is responsible, the fact that we have conflicting fire-safety legislation (and not even part of it was really enforced because of what was saw as either corruption or incompetence) means this kind of incident could have happened in mostly any club in Romania, or in a hospital, school (yes, I'm not kidding), theater, etc... Anyway, long-story short this quickly transformed from just fire-safety to a more general point of view in mostly any aspect the government has power... It is important to understand that unlike other normal protests, in this one no one-time action was *broadly* requested (such as government, parliament or presidential resignations) but a PM that already has charges of corruption facing wouldn't have stand a chance. It's also note mentioning that foreign-news agencies haven't really reported on this subject (can't really blame them since it's a delicate subject hard to understand from the outside and it would be very hard to base a story from local news outlets who we're all reporting either with political siding or with sensationalism in mind). Anyway, since this incident became a symbol for the week of protests that followed, I think it is only normal to leave be mentioned in the article. 82.79.177.39 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can find from other sources, the demonstrators were protesting against government corruption, which led to improper safety monitoring and regulation of the club and others. They called for the resignation of the government to accept responsibility for not performing the jobs they were hired to do (maintaining public safety, etc.). This should be clarified in the article. Some sources I quickly found: and. Neil916 (Talk) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Victor Ponta article, Ponta was already facing criminal charges and other charges of corruption before this resignation. This article should probably make note that his government was already embattled.  Neil916 (Talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This fire sounds like the last straw, not the main reason for resignation. But the public emotion is understandably stirred up, and a politician would be a fool to hold out after this. I think every Romanian over the age of 30 remembers what happened to Nicolae Ceaușescu. Dcs002 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * i 5th or 6th this; it was the biggest reason i came here from the main page--to see how corruption at a local level (which seemed to be the case--people were angry that the mayor had allowed this club to be operating) somehow took down a prime minister. i understand that there are/were other questions or charges of corruption regarding Ponta...and i've read the 1-2 sentence 'explanation' for why this took him down--and i STILL don't really understand it.  perhaps it's far too involved to be worked into this page.  i also find it strange that it took down a mayor, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister...but not the president??Colbey84 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Resignations
a new section was added to the end of the page about the Ponta/Ponta government resignation. i have no issue with the info Peter put here, but i'm wondering if he noticed that some of this had already been covered earlier in the article? specifically, under the Reactions>Domestic>Protests section. i didn't know how else to ask--or i wasn't sure if it should go here, or if i should have clicked on the "talk" link next to Peter's name. anyway, it's here.Colbey84 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"the protests were held to demand the resignations of Prime Minister Victor Ponta, Minister Gabriel Oprea, and Cristian Popescu Piedone,[80][81] the Mayor of Sector 4, who was criticized for giving an operating license to the club without a permit from the fire department." This sentence is important for explaining why he resigned. Allen750 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Allen750--was this in response to me? if so, i...don't understand.  i wasn't saying any of the resignation or demonstration info should be removed; i was simply pointing out that it was now, with the addition of another section on the article, appearing in 2 places/being repeated.  maybe you meant this to be in the section above, where a number of people express confusion about the resignation of the prime minister.Colbey84 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Colectiv nightclub fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208070253/http://fresh24.ro/stiri/exlusiv-fotografii-de-la-clubul-colectiv-explozie-bucuresti-8987 to http://fresh24.ro/stiri/exlusiv-fotografii-de-la-clubul-colectiv-explozie-bucuresti-8987

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of false and/or missing info
I only read the section regarding the Investigation and I can tell it's full of incomplete or misleading info. For example, the section has an outlined quote from the owner/manager of the company who installed the soundproofing, who says the owners preferred non-fireproof material and that the presumably washed the ceiling with solvent. Bot these accusations were subsequently dismissed - both by the official inquiry, and by witnesses (I can recall reading an interview where one of the janitors said the pine ceiling hadn't been taken down or washed at all). Therefore, I think this statement should be taken out of the article.

Next up, there is also a quote from a Romanian newspaper article, that infers that the club was only authorized to host 80 people at any time. Which is not true - the club owners had submitted a statement saying the club had 80 seats. The statement was for fiscal and environmental purposes. Besides, there's no law in Romania stating how many people you can fit in a building.. Then, there is of course the statement from the manager of the National Institute for Research and Development in Mine Safety and Protection to Explosion, who allegedly said there was only one fire extinguisher on the premises. The same manager came back for a second press statement the second day, and said there were four extinguishers on site and that he had previously been misquoted. The misquote made it in the Wikipedia article - but the correct info didn't...

Also, the article fails to underline that the organizers of the concert were the band members and not the club owners. Last but not least, the section incorrectly mentions that one of the leading causes of the disaster was the use of "incompliant, inflammable materials". Which is not true - the law in Romania only requires fireproofing for places where the use of fire is common. There is no requirement for club walls to be covered in fireproof material.

This section is full of false and incomplete info. If needed, I can provide web links to to prove my point. But so far I haven't taken any steps to correct the issues. Firstly, because there are so many of them. The whole section (and presumably most of the rest of the article also) would have to be taken down and rewritten. And secondly, because since there are so many issues, I would like to listen to a second opinion. Razvan mod (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This article need update after one year of accident was showing 64 sad balloons in air for victims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silviu200530 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)