This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halifax Explosion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles 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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
I am not sure how to remove dead external links as I am inexperienced and don't want to mess anything up, but there are a few audio links on this page that 'ave ceased to be :( Sorry about that! Pdxrosss (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article states that the Mont Blanc's gun flew 5.6 kilometres, yet the official placard on the monument states the distance as "almost 2 miles" (so under ~3km) to Little Albro Lake, which is only 2.1 to 2.4 kilometres from the blast site. Is the 5.6 figure taking into account the trajectory and not just the horizontal distance? If so, this should be clarified as it is misleading, especially considering how the distance given for the anchor is linear. These 2 measurements should be presented in the same way, unless I'm missing something. 38.59.182.219 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SS Mont-Blanc article gives amounts for her cargo, saying "cargo of wet and dry 2,300 tons of picric acid, 500 tons of TNT, and 10 tons of guncotton". I think it cites Flemming for this. This article doesn't give those amounts. Does Flemming support these numbers? And is that odd wording "wet and dry 2,300 tons" what is meant? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flemming gives those substances (plus benzene) but not the breakdown of weights for each. Glasner gives 2,300 tons picric, 200 TNT, 10 guncotton, and 35 benzol. As for wet and dry, see the explanation at ton. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit states a claim as being "According to the government’s National Institute of Health’s Library of Medicine". This is highly misleading: the claim is to a work published on PMC, with a large disclaimer stating "Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health". The edit also removed a citation for the preceding material, without explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Estimates of eye injuries vary wildly between sources - for example, CNIB reports that over 800 were blinded, and the BJO article itself indicates that the total number of patients treated was not recorded. It's therefore not possible to say with certainty what is correct. I've implemented a narrower wording to avoid that issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best seek input by others see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Do we have a reason why sources say such different numbers? Were many treated by others doctors that were not ophthalmologists? Because most report more...
PMC talks only about ophthalmologists responce - "Twelve ophthalmologists treated 592 people with eye injuries and performed 249 enucleations." that matches canadianencyclopedia.... However the original report says Blind 41- Both eyes doubtful 44 - One eye doubtful 136 - One eye blind, other saved 141- Both eyes injured, both saved 166 -Total 528.....
CBC says "Shattered glass and flying debris stole sight from more than 1,000 residents. One in 50 people in Halifax were blinded that day or suffered serious eye damage.Doctors and nurses removed or treated damaged eyes from hundreds of people in the two weeks after the deadly blast. Some 206 people lost one eye and dozens lost both. "
CTV says " Thirty-seven people were blinded, more than 1,000 eyes were treated for eye injuries, and a couple hundred more had to have their eyes removed."
CNIB says "A staggering 250 eye removals were performed over a period of two weeks following the explosion, an additional 206 survivors had lost one eye and required monitoring to ensure they retained their vision in the other, and 260 more people had glass embedded in their eyes" Moxy🍁09:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's one possibility. Another is record-keeping - the BJO article itself states that "Cox... did not record the total number of patients he treated" (so the 592 number is known to be an undercount). A third is lack of access: in literature around injuries generally, it is noted that many people just dealt with things themselves as best they could, given how many people were in need of care. Given all these issues I think this version is most appropriate in stating clearly what is certain from the BJO source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
