Talk:2006 Southeast Asian haze

Indonesia Mid‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia: Brunei Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects 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.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brunei (assessed as Mid-importance).

Thailand Mid‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia Mid‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics 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.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Weather: General Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliability and Focus

This article is not reliable as it does not cite its sources. How can oil refining in Singapore be a primary cause from the haze and listed as a "local" cause when the article is clearly talking about Malaysia? Clearly, someone out there is out to flame Singapore and damage its reputation. In fact, referring to the 2005 Malaysian haze, Malaysia itself has forest fires which contribute partly to the haze.

The focus of this article also seems to be centred on much of Malaysia. The article title is 2006 Southeast Asian haze, so other countries should also be included. It is very clear from the way the article is written that it is done so by a Malaysian. Let us include other points of view to make the article more informative and complete. --218.186.8.12 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax lah...the reason why the article and content appear incongruent is because you happen to chance upon the article between the time I renamed the article and the time when I finished expanding the contents. ;)--Huaiwei 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't know the article was moved because I checked the talk page for the move but it wasn't there. Should've checked the history lol. --218.186.8.12 14:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some pagemoves go unannounced. ;) Anyway consider registering for a wikipedia account? Your IP incidently is often used by vandals, and you may face blocking problems if you intend to drop by more often...--Huaiwei 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for editing Huaiwei, i was just about to put a pov tag on. Clearly biased. --218.186.8.12 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only noticed that wierd sentence on Singapore refinery after I renamed the article and was editing it. You happened to come along at the same time!--Huaiwei 14:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

1) The sentence on local sources didn't quite make sense. I've tried to clean it up as best as i can, with regard to what the original author must have had in mind. (Interaction of particulates with plumes ?)

2) Updated Malaysian section based on latest visibility data publicly available.

3) Updated Singapore section. Tried to clarify difference between 3 and 24 hour PSI.

4) Added direct link, without frames, to map provided by nea.

Opps. forgot to sign218.111.60.141 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with some of the edits as reflected in the article. Without the haze, the only location experiencing noetable air pollution is KL. Not Seremban, Port Kloang or Singapore, and one of the contributing factors is actually terrain. KL sits in a natural bowl which makes it difficult for polluted air to clear naturally.--Huaiwei 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontrolled burning

The link in the uncontrolled burning to the controlled burning article just doesnt seem right to me.

I agree and I will change it. Alan Liefting 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

This page gets to be mentioned on the front page! __earth ^(Talk) 01:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Aspect Change to First Verb

I think the first sentence should be changed from its current form in the present simple to the present progressive, i.e. "The 2006 Southeast Asian Haze is affecting..." which would emphasize that it is affecting at this moment. As it stands, it sounds as though this haze were something that habitually or more than once affects Southeast Asia. The only reason we are using the present tense at all is because the haze is currently happening; we don't want that habitual element that the present simple form lends, e.g. in the phrase "He goes to school [each day]"

Well actually haze does habitually affect SEA largely due to uncontrolled burning in Indonesia but of course it isn't the 2006 Southeast Asian haze. However I do largely agree with your point Nil Einne 06:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1997

According to the article, the PSI reached 138 in 1997 and hit 150 at 9pm on 7 Oct 06. Since the 1997 value is less than the 7 Oct 06 reading, the 'since xxxx' structure cannot be used as for its use to be correct, the reading in 1997 has to be more than the 7 Oct 06 value. Also, the very article itself later says that the PSI hit 226 in 1997! Which is the correct reading, 138 or 226? I'm so confused... 218.186.8.12 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, I've removed the confusing statements and only left the highest 3h avg - 226. Please expand in the coming days. - SpLoT 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More pictures!

If we could get more photos from Indonesia and Thailand, it'd be great. It would show how regional the nature of this emergency is. __earth ^(Talk) 09:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added photo of a hazed airport in Pekanbaru, Indonesia, but i'm afraid it will be deleted soon because it said I have to confirm its copyright status. I dont know how to handle the copyright things in wikipedia. Could someone help please? ( the image name is pekanbaruhaze.jpg, and i got it here Nielswik 10:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that will have to be deleted. It is copyrighted by AP. In theory, we may be able to use a small low res version under fair use but we don't accept fair use on wikipedia unless there is a good reason. This generally means either the picture has to be noteable enough to merit inclusion or we have to have no alternatives for an article. Since this isn't a particularly noteable picture (if you're not sure what I mean by a noteable picture see Phan Thị Kim Phúc) and we do have alternatives for this article we don't accept fair use. Nil Einne 13:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added NASA MODIS imagery to the article. – Ch acor 09:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References problem

For some reason, the addition of the image gallery has caused the references section to disappear. To be more specific, the section header is there, but it's an empty section. When I experiment and delete the image gallery, the references come back but I don't see any problems with the gallery section itself. Anybody else seeing the same thing or have an idea? I've tried it on two computers, both running IE 6.0. Neil916 (Talk) 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the refs above the images seems to have solved it. – Ch acor 04:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before and After

Having some before and after shots, so we can have some kind of baseline to compare the pollution to, would be really useful. Just a suggestion.Trainik 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tot of the same idea. Just too lazy to move my butt. :D--Huaiwei 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page about the recurring phenomenon?

This article is only about the 2006 haze, but the important (and frightening) thing about the problem is that it recurs regularly. Shouldn't there be a main article about the recurring phenomenon, with this page, 2005 Malaysian haze, and possibly others as sub-pages about particular years? Or is there such a main page? If so, why isn't it linked to from here? 169.230.94.21 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has started them. I started the two pages because I have some knowledge of them. For all of the rest (especially the 1997 haze), I neither have the information nor the time to mine it. I really don't like writing an one-sentence article just for the sake's of having a page on a subject. But if you want to contribute to it, please do so. We all appreciate any contribution you might have. __earth ^(Talk) 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Haze, which attempts to offer a generalized, worldwide perspective, but as far as the Asian haze problem goes, there should probably be a page dedicated to the problem, its history, its causes and possible solutions. -Wisekwai 04:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is scope, perhaps a Southeast Asian haze page, and one page for particular years when they are significant enough, especially the 1997 Southeast Asian haze?--Huaiwei 11:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am looking for. I don't have the knowledge to write it myself, but I hoped somebody interested in this article would. 169.230.94.21 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overfocusing on Malaysia and Singapore

I think we are losing the overview of the issue. Instead of focusing on the region, we are focusing on specific countries. __earth ^(Talk) 05:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest impact of the haze are in a selected number of countries, so its only natural that they get more content and coverage here. This dosent mean the overall focus is off, because collectively this is still Southeast Asia.--Huaiwei 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but I think earth is also saying that rather than focusing on its scientific effects, etc. For any natural disaster, for example, Hurricane Dennis - it should be more than just listing the impact on countries, though we would have a large "impact" section. John Riemann Soong 09:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally doubt so, for he makes no mention on impact in particular. I would just like to point out the this topic began as 2006 Malaysian haze [1] under his authorship, so its only natural that he be concerned about its subsequent coverage under an expanded title.--Huaiwei 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's true that the Indonesia section is way to small, considering that the haze started there, and probably had the most effects there. - SpLoT 12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is also going to depend on the availability of information that can be used as a reference. Singapore and Malaysia have much more developed media sectors that are aggressive about pursuing the issue. Also, it's their large city centers that are being hit. So there's the impact on people to consider, too. In terms of population and threat to human health, where is the greatest impact? Jakarta is also affected, sure, as is Brunei and cities in south Thailand, but finding news sources and other information is more difficult for those places. -Wisekwai 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that might be true, perhaps its because we don't have enough Indonesian or Thai contributors? I'll visit the Indonesian notice board to see if more from Indonesia are interested. __earth ^(Talk) 01:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some native Thai contributors would certainly be helpful, but part of the reason for the lack of information about the Thai situation is that the major media of Thailand (and wire services) are centered in Bangkok, which is not affected by the haze in contrast to Singapore and KL. Any news out of the south usually has to do with the South Thailand insurgency. Not pointing fingers; that's just how it is. Most media resources are being directed at the political situation or the flooding (which is probably worthy of an article). -Wisekwai 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your message in the Indonesia Noticeboard. After I read the page, it has a strong POV from the affected countries. The article has poor introduction, as it starts from Countries Affected. Based on other natural/(human-caused) disaster articles, they start from the cause/background and how things developed into the disasters. Then the impact is mentioned. I'll help later if I have more time. Perhaps this article can be added in the WP:INA project, so to have more intention from Indonesia-related editors. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks, Earth and Indon. I have now added a similar request for help on the Thailand board. -Wisekwai 08:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Love you guys! __earth ^(Talk) 11:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 Oct 06 PSI readings?

Why aren't they in the table? 218.186.9.4 09:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not updated yet, patience. I will see what I can do. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 and 6 Nov 06 PSI readings?

Same problem again... :-( Littleghostboo[ talk ] 01:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 to 14 Nov 06 PSI readings?

ARGH!! NOT AGAIN!!! Littleghostboo[ boo! ] 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weather related?

Is this weather related enough to go under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology? CrazyC83 03:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that but in Malaysia, the Meteorological department seems to be active when it comes to haze. __earth ^(Talk) 03:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, yes. I found out that meteorology also covers air pollution. __earth ^(Talk) 03:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure its certainly very much to do with the weather. :D--Huaiwei 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korea

The page history says this page was moved to its current location due to the haze spreading to Korea, yet there is no section dealing with Korea specifically under Countries affected. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been established that Korea was affected, to not conduct the page move would not make sense. Be bold - add a Korea section if you have the relevant info. – Ch acor 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions below, it does appear that no one else considers the page move as making much sense thou. Being bold is commendable, but it does have its pitfalls expecially when the edit turns out to be ill-informed.--Huaiwei 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the name 2006 East Asian haze

One problem. If the move was made because Korea is not in Southeast Asia, then how would we name this article so that it would accommodate Saipan? FYI, Saipan is not geographically located in Asia. It's officially in the Oceania. So, shouldn't it be named West Pacific haze instead?

Also, East Asia does not necessarily comprise of Southeast Asia. In fact East Asia usually consists of Japan, PRK, RoK, PRC and RoC. Hence, the term East Asia is highly inaccurate.

Furthermore, compare East Asian haze and Southeast Asian haze. Notice that most of the former's results are "South East Asian haze" instead of "East Asian haze" outright.

Therefore, I move for a vote to return the page to 2006 Southeast Asian haze. __earth ^(Talk) 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, overly centric name. Counter systemic bias. – Ch acor 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that the term "East Asia" is also overly centric. I don't see how we could counter systemic bias by merely switching one centric-ness to another less accurate centric-ness. __earth ^(Talk) 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. The haze is undeniably concentrated in Southeast Asia, which justifies its "centric" name. Just because its effects, however minor, are felt elsewhere do not neccesarily support renaming the article. Since the dust will surely end up circulating around the entire planet eventually, shall we call it the 2006 global haze next? And earth is right that East Asia is usually understood to refer to another region which actually excludes the Southeast Asian region. The current title is very misleading and the page move should be reversed.--Huaiwei 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Huaiwei. The reference only makes a passing hypothesis that the Korean haze may be partly due to Sumatra's and Borneo's fires. According to a search on the internet, I could not find any strong evidence that the passing haze in Korea is explicitly and directly due to the forest fires in Sumatra and Borneo. The term East Asian Haze implicitly implies that most geographical areas within the East Asian region are affected by the fires in Sumatra and Borneo, causing PSI levels to go beyond moderate levels in those many parts of East Asia, which is not the case here. Pardon my knowledge of geography, but do monsoon winds from the tropical region blow to those high latitudes? Does the "haze" actually originate from the Gobi Desert? —Sengkang 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the NEA pictures of smoke haze at 4 p.m. every day for the past week or so, I have never seen any area of smoke haze that stands by itself, away from the thick and moderate haze surrounding the hot spots, so I was just wondering how it would be possible to say conclusively that the haze has reached Korea and Saipan when the haze appears "confined" to South-East Asia. — Ouishoebean 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. We are not sure whether the forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have anything to do with Korea. The haza in Korea maybe something else. Also, "East Asia" refers to PRC, ROC, HK, Macau, Japan, North and South Korea, not Southeast Asian. So the name is very misleading in the first place. We do not have enough evidence to say this haze has affected Korea at this point of time. The haze in Korea could be another issue. We should revert the move. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Although there could be effects (or hypothetical effects) in Korea and Saipan, the bulk of the burning and actual economic cost is brunted by Southeast Asia alone. We definitely should mention the other areas, but they are not the main focus of the haze and hence shouldn't be for the article either. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. This article is primarily about the haze in South-East Asia, and hence the name should reflect that. If one wants to have an article about the haze in Korea or Saipan, there should be another article. To change the name to "East Asian" when most of this article is about South-East Asia, not the rest of East Asia, is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ouishoebean (talk • contribs).
- Flawed logic. This is about the haze event caused by the Indon fires. Both the Saipan and Korean haze had to do with the Indon fires. They should rightfully be covered in this as well. Please take note of your broad, baseless comment "ridiculous" - WP:CIV. To everyone else, I have to say I expect more of a lot of you to know better than to pile on. – Chacor 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least for myself, I'm not 'piling on', and I hope you don't regard us as doing so. We have our views, and you have yours. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it distasteful that WP:CIV is being cited here when individuals are just strongly expressing their objection to a factually "ridiculous" page move. Meanwhile, I fail to comprehend your "locic" either. If the effects in Korea and Saipan are indeed directly caused by the Indonesian fires alone, than mind telling us if Saipan is in East Asia?--Huaiwei 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The fires originate in Southeast Asia and most of the effects are being felt there. Also, East Asia is not an accurate name for this article. -Wisekwai 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional matter

I propose macro events like monsoon, typhoon and el nino be pulled out from the country section and placed into the lead section or a section on causes which will naturally talk from a regional POV. The "countries affected" should discuss effects only. I feel that would better organized the article. Sounds good? __earth ^(Talk) 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, for sure, Earth.-Wisekwai 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- sweet. I'll slowly move a bit of things around. __earth ^(Talk) 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that. Country sections should concentrate on issues percuilar to them.--Huaiwei 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readings for Malaysia

There are no readings for Malaysia in November. What happened? Have the data been released yet? Wai Hong 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcomed to key in the figures. I'm busy at the moment. __earth ^(Talk) 07:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event?

I'd say this is no longer current, and the tag should be removed. – Ch acor 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Northeast monsoon setting in. - SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA says the haze is due to El Niño induced wildfires

The description of the causes of the haze is entirely flawed. It is not caused by slash-and-burn agriculture. It is entirely due to wild fires caused by El Niño. Please read this article: NASA Data Links Indonesian Wildfire Flare-Up to Recent El Nino http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/elnino_wildfire.html

Please sign you contribution, IP address 213.132.131.8.

You know that things have more than one cause. (My wood fire at home burns because I light a match. But also because I let the wood dry out, etc.) Yes, El Niño is a cause (and the article should reflect that), but the Nasa article also mentions soil moisture. If you drain peat by digging canals, soil moisture goes down. But there are other causes: for example, felled forests being set on fire will also contribute. --Annielogue (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]