Talk:Mozambique funeral beer poisoning

categories
I have removed 2015 health disasters for now, since no such category exists. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? This seems like a great time to encourage it to be created. 76.100.136.246 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was a contained event; the beer was homemade. Health disasters are widespread. 70.77.52.140 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Some trolls ruined the article
It appears this article's been a victim of vandalism, I'm not sure what was edited but it needs to be rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilia4 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not add a bold copy of the article's name per MOS:BOLDTITLE
The article is about the event, not about defining the name we have given to it. We should not try to force our name into it: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. See MOS:BOLDTITLE.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the current opening sentence is unacceptable. Especially considering that the article begins with the words "On 11 January 2015," yet the article is actually describing the events surrounding a poisoning that sources say occurred on 9 January 2015. I suggest we revert to my previous edit of the opening sentence, except without the subject of the sentence being bolded.Abierma3 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's merely a description used as the article's title (and has no significance beyond that), the phrase "Mozambique funeral beer poisoning" shouldn't appear in the lead, bolded or not.
 * But I agree that the date of the poisoning should be conveyed, so I've appended "at a funeral two days earlier". (The "at a funeral" portion was included previously and apparently was lost amid the reversion of vandalism.)  —David Levy 07:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The deaths weren't reported to the press until the 11th, at which time an official number of 69 was given, which has now changed to 73. At some point a final number will be had, and the lead can be rewritten to reflect that.  This is a totaly separate matter from forcing our title into the text.  When an article is based on a pre-existing topic, like "fish" we say ""fish are aquatic vertebrates lacking legs." But in this case the title exists simply because we have made up that title.  It's not something that has become codified by history, like WWI, which was originally "The Great War". So we don't go to the trouble of saying the trouble of saying "The Mozambique funeral beer poisoning was a poisoning by beer of funeral goers in Mozambique."  We Just get along with the facts, and the basic facts at this point are that thw Government announced the deaths of 69 people on the 11th.  Once an official determination of the deaths is made we can rewrite the lead, but we'll never make the lead about the title--it's always about the event itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Drum"
Article now mentions a drum, without saying anything about what this is. What drum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.72.103 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This apparently means the barrelin which it was brewed and served.

Image Widths
I have tried to make the image widths and the infobox approximately the same, at 230px. I really don't care if that's 250 or 200, but I think some sort of symmetry would be useful. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can the map be added to the infobox directly? Also, the second image seems like it would belong in a background section of sorts (explaining historical use of the drink or something) since it is not directly about this event). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly can be done, but I'm not having much success cut and pasting a template from another article, I can ask at the help desk. As for the second image, the MOS allows (encourages) illustrative images.  But we're obviously not going to a get a usable free image in this case.  So long as the image is properly labelled there's no real problem. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates
Obviously the coordinates should be as close as we can get to the funeral location. Our Forbes source says "village of Chitima", but Google Maps never heard of that and I can find no other location reference for it. Searches produce a Chitima district but no village (and the only map of the district that I found doesn't quite include the current coordinates location). , may I ask how you arrived at those coordinates? Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's also Songa, although it seems to be a very common place name. If there's no solution, once Jswd answers we could always just point out the province. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I read the sources, Songa is one of the two places where most of the victims lived, which can be ignored (I hope) for purposes of the coordinates. (By the way, Google Maps calls it Songo, the Forbes article calls it Songo, and Songo has ten times as many web hits as Songa, so it seems safe to change Songa to Songo, and I will do so.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no way to know how accurate this is, but this page at gomapper.com shows Chitima at -15.73722°N, 32.77194°W, over nine miles south of our current location. Google Maps satellite view shows some houses and other structures there. I think this would put it within the map of Chitima district that I ran across earlier but am still trying to find again. At one zoom level, Google Maps marks a populated location "Estima" about a mile to the west, across a road and river. Could be a different town, or maybe Estima is an alternate name for Chitima. It's interesting that both end with "tima". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok here's the map of Chitima district (administrative area). As I thought, it includes the coordinates above but not the ones we're currently using. All things considered, unless has something to add, I think we should use the newer coords and cite the gomapper page. For an estimated "object size" of 800 m, I would round to three decimal positions, per WP:OPCOORD. Thus, -15.737°N, 32.772°W. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have boldly adjusted the coordinates as described above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Further Update
This blog has good sourced info on the pesticide theory: https://rdouglasfields.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/synapse-poisons-in-croc-bile-beer-the-likely-killer-in-mozambique/ μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)