Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Time of quake

It appears on this source that the quake took place at 9:53 PM GMT. Can anyone confirm? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Recorded at 21:53:09 UTC[1] Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caribbean

Have any cruise ships been affected? I remember having sailed into Grand Turk after the port opened after the recent hurricane (was it Ike?) that had struck there. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cruise ships generally do not go to Haiti. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Caribbean has a private resort on Haiti called Labadee. It's a fair distance from the epicentre and from what I've read the initial survey didn't show any damage. The first ship due to arrive after the earthquake is the Independence of the Seas, on Friday, January 15th. They haven't announced any changes to the itinerary as of this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Prediction?

The 1692 Jamaica earthquake article included a link to a journal article in which an earthquake of roughly this size was forecasted in 2006. not sure if it's relevant, or how to handle, so put in some language under Background.Stu 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

220.255.127.193 deleted the language, commenting it was a different fault system. I added references both to USGS report on this earthquake, and also on the 2006 study, which seems to suggest it was the same fault system. can anyone confirm?Stu 06:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what you're adding, but it sounds awfully like WP:Syn to me. I suggest you wait until some source discussing this earthquake mentions the 2006 study/predicition. Edit: I did find [2] but I don't suggest it be added to the article as it isn't a great source and a minor point anyway since as mentioned 2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning controversy & [3], earthquake predicitions are notoriously unreliable but not that uncommon so it's unsurprising if someone 'predicted' many of the quakes that happen (what people forget is all the similar 'predictions' that don't pan out). If the controversy gets big enough like the L'Aquila earthquake example, then we probably should have something in the article, with appropriate WP:weight Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrondissement and Department

The arrondissement and department articles need to be updated to account for the earthquake, not just the Port-au-Prince city and Haiti articles.

• Port-au-Prince Arrondissement
• Ouest (department)

76.66.197.17 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Port-au prince earthquake

The most notable victim of this disaster is the capital. Should we rename it to 2010 Port-au Prince earthquake, something like 1948 Ashgabat earthquake...?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That would also encompass the arrondissement as it shares the name... probably a good idea. You could file a WP:RM for it. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the relatively unknown name of the Capital (in Europe, in any case), and the size of the area affected within Haiti as a whole, not just those areas within the Capital, it would probably be best to leave the title of the document as 'Haiti Earthquake' as opposed to naming it for the capital. Certainly in all news reports, particularly BBC, the event is being reported as the 'Haiti Earthquake' and as a result it the phrase which most users will use to search for the event. Perhaps as opposed to renaming the article, that a rederection from 'Port-au-Prince earthquake' is established. Possibly, with years to come, what the event is referred to as may change, however, until that point, we should use the name that is most common in today's reports. The Red Threat (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There are no other Haitian earthquakes we need to differentiate from and this clearly affects the whole country --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is another quake or the media calls it the Port-au-Prince quake, 2010Haiti earthquake seems right.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Selected Cities Exposed

MMI	City	Population
X	Petit Goave	15,000
X	Grand Goave	5,000
IX	Gressier	4,000
VIII	Carrefour	442,000
VII	Miragoane	6,000
VII	Port-au-Prince	1,235,000
VII	Delmas 73	383,000

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

disaster pics

Some disaster photos would be a good idea, for this and the related articles. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/earthquake_in_haiti.html. I hope to get some personal photos from my parents soon. --70.82.4.109 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tourism Impact of the Haiti Earthquake

American Airlines and Delta Air Lines have cancelled its flights to Haiti. JetBlue is allowing passengers traveling to Puerto Plata, Santo Domingo, or Santiago in the Dominican Republic whose travels are affected by the quake to rebook at no charge.[4]
Krenakarore (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Aid Organisation Links

We had a few anon. IP editors warring a little over whether we shoud have links to Aid Organisations. Is this ever done? Personally I can't see the harm, at least while this is a current event(and assuming they are legitimate orgs. like the Red Cross). I suggested they try WikiNews instead. Any opinions? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to include links or account numbers or whatever similar here. If nothing else, someone may be using it as a scam. Let the news houses take care of that. Or wikinews, I don't know what the policy is there. --Tone 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How could the Red Cross be a scam?!!

69.171.160.185 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is at least posible for con artists to set up look-alike websites. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we put bank account numbers in this article, anyone could modify them at any time Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add in this South African aid information? I've never edited, so no idea how: http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article259058.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.200.246 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we are showing clear bias towards certain charities over others, which is a serious compromise to the standards contributors have set over the years.

I just removed American Red Cross on DMOZ and List of Charities Helping Haitian Earthquake Victims from External Links for this reason. The list seems to exclude most non-US charities for a start. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Then replace it with something better, don't just leave it with nothing. Lives depend on it.

America is the closest developed nation to the disaster and should therefore be well represented.

69.171.160.147 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fanatical and Overzealous Link Deletion: Wikipedia states in it's its guidelines that one should not be fanatical about rules but should look at the overall mission of Wikipedia. Removal of Red Cross Aid links is absurd and fanatical. I have changed the Red Cross link to its DMOZ link. I ask for help from other wiki editors and administrators to stop fanatical and mindless deletion of nonprofit aid links, especially in an emergency. Please help by appealing over the heads of narrow rule interpretations and fanatical link deletions. Relevant nonprofit links were not what Wikipedia had in mind when they talked about reducing links.

I am not saying there should be tons of non-profit links but a few relevant ones (especially using DMOZ) is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy.

69.171.160.147 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the precedents or policy details, but I'm say when you can do good, don't worry about the rules. Put in a factual context if you like: . Numerous aid organizations have set up websites in response to the earthquake including X Y and Z.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caveat: verified authentic information only.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A group of vandals now keep removing the Red Cross links from the "International Response" section.

Can anyone help? If any admins see this-- please help, these are calloused and destructive acts of vandalism.

69.171.160.153 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

that's gravely serious. i suggest pressing criminal charges against these vandals. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Verizon is making it easy for individuals to donate by punching in a text message code "90999" http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2010-01-13-haitisocial_N.htm Ottawahitech (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Too Soon

With rescue effects still underway and news still too sketchy to be certain, <?>isn’t it too soon to have this article? It’s terribly tasteless (not to mention disrespectful) to be speaking of such an event while the dying are still dying, and at any rate for at least a week or so all news coming out of the event will be unreliable.174.25.99.225 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)A. REDDSON

People paid to write about such events are never blamed the way people who do it for free seem to be. Other than that, your criticisms are too vague - which information in the article do you feel is doubtful? Evercat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is better to talk about it than not to. How can you consider any dissemination of information about a current crisis to be in poor taste? People are desperate to know what is going on, and Wikipedia is a respected resource for sharing information. You came here for a reason, most likely to either learn more about the crisis or to criticize a current event article while people are still looking at it. The former is the reason the article exists and why most have come here. The latter is just tasteless and disrespectful. Damien Qui (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 174 has a point regarding the unreliability of early news. But it's going to happen, without locking every article related to Haiti, and any article name variation on Haiti Earthquake, people are coming here for info, see this. Views of the Haiti article have increased 300-400% against yesterday. Tomorrow it will be even more. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the power of wikipedia and modern media is well illustrated by how quickly the editors begin compiling data, verifying it as it comes and and cross referencing multiple sources from around the world to make a current article. I've seen this article update to more current information about casualties and responses while major news networks are still reporting unverified information or information that isn't current to the situation. It is important to get the information to the people with the highest intention of truthfully recording this tragedy and updating our chronically as faithfully as possible. Scribeofargos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Further to my comments above Scribeofargos, I wonder If any News Agencies are coming here, at least for a broad overview of what's happening? They could never afford the number of people, checking sources and scouring the Net that do it here for free! So long as we maintain NPOV and VERIFY etc. I have noticed some (other) IPs linked to Goverments adding details, not always sourced, that may be seen as favourable to their country! There was also some edit warring over inclusion of donation links to Aid Agencies.

• Current page view statistics for the 13th HERE are nearly 170,000. Which to me seems a bit low. The related MINUSTAH articlce has gone from <100 views/day to 5,500.HERE--220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that many discovered this newly created article through googling, but google itself did not discover this article until sometime yesterday. In the meantime wikipedians were adding new information both here and also at the Haiti article, initially without creating a link from there to here. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC):::: The news is inundated with images and stories of relief efforts. This is a good thing. This article will be here in 6 months when people vaguely remember something or other happened in some Caribbean island, maybe Martinique, or Aruba...some kind of disaster or something... Hopefully this article will be comprehensive when folks go to jog their memories. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Too soon? People will forget about Haiti one week from now. Also, Ppl know that this news is "young" so they should know not to take this seriously. Unless they are really dumb.Phead128 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

not to soon, an interesting detail is that even with the show of compassion now going on, the first 24 hours the western (and i think worldwide) public has not relevantly been informed as to the scale, nothing for certain ofcourse, but going to bed to perhaps a 100 dead and getting up at estimates reaching a 100k leaves a bitter taste, i just can't belief nothing was obvious the first 24 hours in the information society, likewise comments from twitter etc., i saw, never seemed to acces the scale in a rational manner. much could be improved for early reactions, also by correspondents locally giving more descriptive reporting. don't go it's pov., it is at least very curious it took 24 hours to allow the worlds public an assesment of the scales, and the aid's organisations responses a day late should not be allowed to gain credibility from that, whence otherways the next incident will also be smoothed untill it is late.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

Can someone explain how Venezuela was affected? Only the infobox states that it was affected by the earthquake, while there is no other mentions of it or references. --12george1 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, so far I haven't heard any reports of Venezuela being affected by it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The US Geological Survey has a website which collects reports from people who feel earthquakes. See [5] for the summary on this quake. They've received 12 reports from Venezuela of feeling the earthquake. Pretty amazing since it's 1000 miles away.Stu 16:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu (talk • contribs)

But feeling an earthquake and being affected by it are two different things - for instance, have roads, water, or electric been disrupted in Venezuela? If so, to me then the nation is affected; if not then it seems a little much to make it seem as such.206.251.7.31 (talk)

Fair point, but the current text of the article reads "felt" not "affected by" so it seems ok. admittedly the fact it was felt 1000 miles away may be more a curiosity than a piece of hard news.Stu (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When information is contested in an article, the appropriate response is to find a secondary source. Since this information comes from a primary source, it should be removed from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Did you feel it?" is important to a lot of people that like to watch quakes. It is somewhat "traditional" (for lack of a better word) to know how far it was felt. Incidently, one USGS report said that it was felt in Tampa, FL. Gandydancer (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a split

I would suggest splitting the reactions section into a seperate article. I think as the article's content grows splitting this section into its own article would make this article more navigatable. See Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks for a similar example of a reactions section splitting off to form a seperate article.  Burningview  ✉ 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a fairly standard way to split these large event articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

However, it would appear too early for a split at the moment. Compare the size of Mumbai articles to the size of this one. A split is possible, but some time later. --Tone 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• comment see the below section #Proposed split 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Americans seeking news about family members in Haiti

Should this be included in the article? USAtoday has this info at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-01-12-Haiti_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip INFORMATION: Americans seeking news about family members in Haiti can call 1-888-407-4747, set up by the U.S. Department of State. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure why we would only include a number for Americans who want to inquire about loved ones. People in many countries have friends and family in Haiti. If a list of numbers was aggregated somewhere it would probably be appropriate to put that in the external links section—even links to info pages that are country specific would probably be okay, but I don't think these would belong in the article text. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means - publish phone numbers for all countries that have those for "friends and family in Haiti". Ottawahitech (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties section

I don't want to create a stir here, but I think this section is quite tasteless as it stands for a couple of related reasons: 1) It breaks casualties down by nation of origin (complete with flags!) which just seems unnecessary at this point; 2) In so doing, it gives far more attention to non-Haitian deaths, even though 99% of the people who died are undoubtedly Haitian. Currently we mention two Haitian people who were killed in the quake. Do we seriously believe it's important to mention that the Taiwan ambassador to Haiti "suffered broken bones and was taken to a hospital" when we're likely looking at 100,000+ deaths here? I think this section is completely embarrassing and plan to basically scrap it (I'd reduce mentions of foreign casualties to one sentence for the time being) in the near future unless someone explains why we give such undue weight to the deaths of non-Haitians. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note. If this disaster passes 100,000 deaths this will be the deadliest disaster in history in the Western Hemisphere. Surpasing the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

why did someome remove the notice re. the death of the archbishop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.162.215 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Casualties are casualties, and a breakdown by nation is customary in articles about major disasters. I concur that the Taiwanese ambassador breaking several bones is not worthy of a mention here. In the future, as more details become available, 'Foreign deaths' should become a subsection, with the main 'Casualties' section focusing on the disastrous loss of live throughout the country. As of now, however, it's easier to obtain information on foreign victims, until major news organizations and governments inform us of the casualties among locals.Missionary (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course casualties are casualties, but it's completely disproportionate to focus almost solely on non-Haitian casualties simply because there is more reporting about them, and I would not blame a Haitian person if they were rather severely offended by that section. Until we get more information about casualties (which could be awhile) I think it's in extremely bad taste (not to mention not NPOV) to highlight the deaths, injuries, or disappearances of a relatively small number of people from wealthier countries with more powerful media voices. We should mention those in just a sentence of two for now and get rid of the garish display of flags. Obviously a full sub-section on foreign casualties can come into being once we know more and the article expands. I'll remove the Taiwan ambassador right now, but I still think what we have is severely unbalanced and easily avoidable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are likely more foriegn casualties than listed here, but I think the point of this section as it stands is to offer info on known casualties, I don't think that by listing foriegn casualties we minimize in any way the devistating loss of Haitian life, and I am sure this will be expounded on significantly as news becomes available. I do think that in future, once more details are available, that 'Foreign casualties' should indeed become a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbells1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd better edit things that can not be changed. Missing people may be rescued. It's nonsense to strech this list of casualties up to God knows where. We need to change this list into a text to avoid so many flags everywhere. By the way, there are many "casualties" which have no reference listed ! We could remove 'em. Krenakarore (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed everything that was unsourced and most everything that referred to people (certainly specific ones) who were "missing." Both of these type of additions should be removed pretty vigorously since we don't need to participate in the propagation of rumor. The section is much thinner now, but it will be quickly populated again and we need to think of a better way to handle this. It might actually be advisable to create a splitoff article right now to drain away some of these edits from the main article. Something akin to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (though the title would need to be somewhat different since this disaster was basically localized to Haiti) might be helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well done. Thanks for your Major contribution Bigtime. Krenakarore (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The estimated death toll will depend on the exposed population, about 4 million, the building collapse rate, looks to be about 30% and the collapse rate to the fatality rate about 10% is a good guess in the epicentral area. The people in the US gov planning the response need this data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macneacail (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

don't get what you mean: the 10% of the 4 million figure or the 10% of the 30% collapse rate ? and how the collapse rate relate to the population ? Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe he means 4,000,000 X .3 X .1 = 120,000 estimated "fatalities," with many more "casualties." I am not sure, however; everyone is waiting for more substantive information about the scope of this disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.72.139 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. thanks. dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

agree, yesterday it was so distastefull today i didn't even take the pain of looking at it, 2 named haitians and a nobel price laureate, as if i even want to know that when there are 1000s people dead.24.132.171.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

Just giving you all an updated wire: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15143632.htm The Haitian government has buried 50k, they're expecting up to 200k. I tried editing the section but it wouldn't stick. So, I'm going to leave it in your hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.61.58 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, the Haitian government has stated that it has buried 100,000 people. This should remove the Red Cross estimate of 45-50k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.61.58 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

additional unverified

I have been listening to CTV News Channel about their Haiti earthquake coverage and they mentioned a couple points that I could not source on the Internet. I trust what they are saying is true, despite no website source. Two points they have made are that fraud telemarketers have been calling people to extort money from people and also a report of a missing former Member of Parliament whose name I cannot find. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And something else - I removed a reference indicating that two American missionaries were among the missing. That doesn't appear to be the case, according to anything I've seen online - if it's readded it should be sourced. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been listening to CNN's Anderson Cooper express relief when he saw a Norwegian convoy drive by. I cannot source this either. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson: 18th Century Satanism Caused Haiti's Earthquake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider adding the following somewhere: Televangelist Pat Robertson referenced the Haitian Revolution's vodou origins as the explanation for the 2010 Haiti earthquake, when he told viewers of his Christian Broadcasting Network, "[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor." http://www.salon.com/news/haiti/index.html?story=/news/2010/01/13/haiti_robertson Salon.com - 'Robertson: Haiti had "pact with devil"' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterJayEm (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can put it the Pat Robertson article, but it isn't very relevant here. --Elliskev 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This says more about Robertson than it does about this earthquake, and for certain this is a fringe theory. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Third that, for now at least, though it may be worth discussing on Robertson's article talk page. Speaking of thirds, no doubt Haitians would be fascinated to hear Robertson's little history lesson, wherein Haiti achieved its independence from "Napoleon the third and whatever", presumably sometime in the 1850s when Faustin I was around. It's weird that the "swore a pact to the devil" aspect of the comment has some competition for the dumbest part of the statement, though certainly no competition when it comes to utter disregard for basic humanity. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It also strikes me the ignorance of some prominent religious figures when it comes to other religions. Sure, during that period they believed in some unusual things like, but Haitian Vodou is based on West African relgions and Catholicism. Grsz¹¹ 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Catholicism itself (NOT Vodou) is the dominant religion in Haiti (followed by some 80% of the population). So Robertson's comment only makes sense if we assume that he believes Catholicism is demonic (which he may very well believe, since Jack Chick and certain other fundamentalists believe just that). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

About hatemongering, I should warn that the obvious URL exploitable by a certain questionable individual seems to be not registered, and grabbable ? If someone has some spare buck can do a favour to the entire Net, registering the URL, taking it link away from this questionable individual (it's the only cybersquatting everyone applaud, and I suspect I have sayed enough...) Best regards from Italy, and apologies for the abuse of WP resources, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to Fred Phelps, aren't you? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: Bois Caïman. I also asked this in jest, but I seem to have gotten a decent reply: Where can I find that painting that depicts the slaves of Haiti making a deal with the devil to overthrow Napoleon-the-third-or-whatever?Civic Cat (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donations sought

How are we putting together the list? Do we go on notable charities which have appealed or only if the appeal by the charity has had third party coverage? Any http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/Haitiappeal and http://shelterbox.org/ are missing along with many others. --BozMo talk 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question, and quite frankly we might have to scrap that entire section if we cannot come up with a firm criteria. A lot of groups are going to put out appeals for money to help relief efforts in Haiti, and there's no way we can put them all here (practically every major religious denomination on earth could be included, I would have to imagine). One possibility would be to limit the list to groups with an actual physical presence in Haiti (e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières) but that's rather arbitrary. The potential for the section to become a way to advertise appeals from every possible concerned group (and, more problematically, the inevitable con artists and organizations who will look to make a buck off of human misery and the good will of others) might make a "donations sought" section more trouble than it's worth, even though I see the obvious utility. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good criterion which obviously rules in SOS Children [6] Oxfam [7] and is fairly quick to check for others. Otherwise I guess we might have to spin a separate page for a long list. --BozMo talk 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This was raised before. It is very problematic to include a list of donation sites and manage to be neutral and to prevent scams. The best option in my opinion would be to link a third party site listing all different organizations. Ideally, the Haitian government would set up such a page. In that case, we have only one link that is reliable and lists all. Does anything like that exist? --Tone 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "not yet" is a pretty good bet. Do we wait? --BozMo talk 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the list should come out, and quickly. We have no basis for knowing if it is complete. There may well be more deserving local charities and such a list, which may give the impression of being authoritative, could divert funds from them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what was the practice before, such as with the tsunami in 2004 and earthquakes in Kashmir and China... Maybe best to ask at one of the mostly read sites? I'll ask at WP:AN. --Tone 22:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note also, for example, that the UNICEF appeal is not included. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lists of links is not our job anyway. We should do and kick DMOZ to do something soon. --BozMo talk 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no support for the list which, in any case, fails WP:EL and have taken it out. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tone. Here's the link for those who want to follow your comment at Wikipedia:AN#2010_Haiti_earthquake Ottawahitech (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

After the tsunami, a separate article was created for donations. As I recall, it was protected from editing. We should create a separate article and allow only administrators to edit it. There are many reputable charities that should be mentioned. Charities can be added to the talk page and an administrator can check for reputability. I will be adding a news link that warns about scams. --T1980 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just repeating myself, since this seems to be where the discussion is happening:"I don't know the precedents or policy details, but I'm say when you can do good, don't worry about the rules. Put in a factual context if you like: . Numerous aid organizations have set up websites in response to the earthquake including X Y and Z.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caveat: verified authentic information only.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)"

--Tznkai (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally while I don't feel that strongly about it, I don't think such an article, or anything in this article, is a good idea. People have already raised the issue of choosing charities, potential bias and risk of scams in choosing links. I would also note the issue of different charities in different countries. Even if it's the same charity, people may often wish to donate to the local chapter for ease of donation, tax deductability etc and it may not even be possible to donate to a foreign charity. Some charities may have sites that are able to direct people to the appropriate local chapter or site, others may not. For example the UNICEF site aboveis the US site. If I wanted to donate to UNICEF, I would likely use [8] as with most Kiwis, do we really want to link to 200+ country sites (if there are really that many). Okay looking further it turns out UNICEF does have an international donation site [9] so that isn't a good example but I think it illustrates the point. I'm not sure what happend with the Boxing Day Earthquake/Tsunami but I'm not sure if that's a good example. Wikipedia has moved on a lot in those 5+ years. And I wouldn't regard that as a good example. About 2 years ago (haven't looked recently), I came across a lot of the articles on the tsunami which made it sound like the tsunami just happened recently, people were still urgently needing donations etc, there were many people unaccounted for (which was still likely true, but not in the way the article was worded). In that case we had the issue of the tsunami affecting many countries so there were a lot of articles on the different countries which was part of the problem but it remains an example of stuff we don't want to repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't let the difficulty of a task paralyze us from doing our best effort. There are difficulties, they can be overcome.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on wikipedia's guidelines, but tracking a list of "approved" donation websites in this article is overreaching. Wikipedia is a solid part of the internet and there is a lot of great information here, but it is only one part of the internet. Wikipedia isn't a one-stop shop for everything. People can come to this site, realize the scope of the tragedy, and then externally decide on how to make a donation. That information is out there. There are a host of search engines that can be used to find this kind of information. Those same search engines were probably what led them here in the first place. Having a list of "approved charitable organizations" is a dangerous precident to set, especially if such a list is be composed under such short notice. Agentchuck (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Okay, this seems to be the right section to put this: There has been a call on twitter to create a relief wiki for Haiti: http://twitter.com/BENatDAP/status/7775787156 Is anyone here up to that challenge? Because I'm totally not. Evening Scribe (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I retract my request; there already is one. http://haiti.ushahidi.com Evening Scribe (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I know that it's a bit early for this discussion, but I fear that this page will grow quite a bit. Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 14 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Though, some manual archiving will probably be needed before bot starts working in 2 weeks. --Tone 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I could init it with 5 days or make it even more agressive.--Oneiros (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is only at 30k right now thought it could grow at a rapid pace. I'd say start with two weeks or ten days and if the pages gets too large set it at one week, then even less if necessary. But regardless setting up the page for archiving is a good idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Flags!

About half of this article is flag icons. Okay not half but a lot. Is there a reason this is desirable? Do we really want an article on a horrifying tragedy in Haiti to be covered with a bunch of flag icons from around the world? Is this standard practice for these kind of articles?

The problem beyond just the flags is that about half the article text (for real this time) is devoted to what other countries said about the tragedy and not the tragedy itself. What the other countries say and offer in the way of help is extremely predictable (if no doubt appreciated), but we seem to be on a path where we'll have a statement from the president or foreign minister of every nation in the UN eventually. Is there a way to get this under control by changing the format of this section? I'm wondering if editors who have worked on these "unfolding disaster" articles before have any wisdom to offer here in terms of preventing them from becoming an endless list of responses/reactions. It's completely insane that we only have one paragraph (in the "aftermath" section) on what actually happened to Haiti and Haitians and five times that much on things like "Schools help donate with bake sales, and fundraisers" and "A team of 23 rescue workers and two specially trained dogs will be sent." Obviously a lot of people will make drive-by edits and want to make sure that their nation's efforts to help are recognized (which is perfectly understandable) but we need to rein that in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This will change very quickly. We could move all those "funding results" listed in "International response" to a new "Financial aid" section, better dividing the article. Let's go for it ! Krenakarore (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the majority of reports so far. Communications from in Haiti are limited, we have more of what is being said about it. Flags are an acceptable way of doing this, as they have been in the past, and are much more desirable then a bunch of tiny sections. It's only been 24 hours, and it would be counterproductive to heavily alter it right now. Grsz¹¹ 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it just seems to me that we could still include a lot of replies in one section without the flag icons, and I think a lot of readers will look at those things as somewhat bizarre (or maybe it's just me). And some sort of "funding" or "aid" section will definitely make sense, but I really hope we can keep flags out of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd better not color the article up with so many different flags (they will remain there in the previous section). Here: "The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) is providing $200,000 (£122,000) in immediate emergency aid which can be used to provide food, potable water, medicines and temporary shelter." BBC. Then we could include all the info listed in "International response" totalling the fund, together with the countries which have already stated the release of this money. We could list them and use a {multicol} to split them in two columns. This "Warnings about phony charities" could follow right below. This new section would be quickly expanded with other reports. Krenakarore (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I don't like about the current flag usage. What do flags indicate? Do flags represent the governments of countries, or the people of those countries? Should I be expecting to see donations and help provided by people generously and voluntarily, or the actions of leaders eager to express their status in world affairs? – RVJ (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The flags are pretty ridiculous. The article gives way too much undue weight to statements and actions from distant heads of state. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I tend to disagree, while I have no desire to downplay the plight of the Haitian Republic and its people, I think there is genuine interest in what other countries are doing in response. This is owing to a number of reasons: 1) Even CNN has covered the geopolitical significance of aid from the Dominican Republic given the long history of distrust and limited cooperation between the DR and Haiti. 2) The U.S. response is important because this is a humanitarian crisis in what many international relations scholars would call its "backyard," or "sphere of influence." 3) The response from France is important because Haiti used to be a French colony. I could go on and on with specific examples but more generally, these bits of information matter because we are in a globalized world and Haitian expatriates live in many of the countries that are currently providing aid. However, if the consensus is to move these entries into a separate article linked to this one, I am not against that either. Just speaking for myself, I wanted to know what other countries were doing and I was happy to find that information on wikipedia. Rafajs77 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

well actually yes, the usual article of a current event is mutilated that way, usually with proud expressions of condolences of non affected bobo's elsewhere.you might as well include the line: standard rhetorics of sorrow have been expressed by all trade partners that left them to poor to fence for themselves.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

It says, "Haitian president Preval later confirmed that Annabi died in the earthquake. Annabi was meeting with a Chinese delegation at the time of the disaster." Was he there or not? This part of the article doesn't make sense.Abce2 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

actually makes sense; albeit, at seems, the entire UN civilian command chain is practically destroyed (and the UN military chain seriously disrupted,also, for what I grok...) what was in course inside the destroyed (civilian) command centre can be known to officials & officier outside of it (external security, drivers of chinese delegation, etc.) The real issue now is the total disruption, if not destruction of every conceivable chain of command and control in Haiti.... Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But I'm saying that the article says that he died, and right below it it says he wasn't even there. He can't be in two places at once, let alone dead and alive at the same time.Abce2 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh...I just got it. I'll try to fix the wording. I thought it said he was at China. Cheers, Abce2 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No he was meeting a Chinese delegation in Haiti. What happened to the members of this delegation, I'm not sure, very likely they perished too. It's possible they are part of the 8 Chinese peacekeepers reported killed but I don't believe so Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources

• There may be some useful links at Crisis commons - Haiti/2010 Earthquake.
• UNOSAT will publish their first imagery shortly, maybe tomorrow. Their images can be uploaded to commons. Here's an example showing the licensing used.

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

UNOSAT have published their first preliminary analysis of Satellite-Identified IDP Concentrations, Road & Bridge Obstacles in Central Port-au-Prince. See EQ-2010-000009-HTI. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh

I can't make an edit without getting a (sometimes multiple) edit conflicts. Sorry, just expressing my frustration. Grsz¹¹ 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just the way it goes on current events article...gotta be quick. One way to avoid this is to limit your edits to a small sub-section as opposed to hitting "edit" on the entire page, where you know multiple people will be working. Rafajs77 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Wouldn't "2010 Haitian Earthquake" be better than "Haiti Earthquake" for name of the article.--174.103.224.13 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems a precedent for how it is now, see List of 21st century earthquakes. Grsz¹¹ 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For those confused by the above, I believe the OP is suggesting "2010 Haitian Earthquake" would be better then "2010 Haiti Earthquake". If you're like me you may miss the 'Haitian' bit and think the OP is saying "2010 Haiti Earthquake" is better then "Haiti Earthquake" even though the article is and has been 2010 for a long time (since the beginning?) Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

image permission

Can we add this image to the article? I don't know about the legal copyright requirements, but maybe someone here does and can add it with the proper tags. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

actually in the lower right corner was the link to the copyright guidelines, whose, as I understand (i'm not a lawyer...) basically permit the reproduction on WP as a non-commercial site, perhaps the unhappy wording of the link don't help much.... HTH, and best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is under Crown Copyright, so probably not be able to use it here (we have tons of free images showing relief efforts). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What if I use this with the image? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need photos from every single country who gives aid; we have some right now under a free license and it will fail our policies. However, if you have an article about Canada's involvement with Haiti, you could use that image at that article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I doubt that. It's resonable to expect a free image could be created to replace that since the aide efforts are still ongoing. Even more so since it's a widescale multinational effort, so it's easily possible that e.g. there could be a US-gov (i.e. PD) or Brazilian national media agency (who I believe release their images under some CC license) image of Canadian relief supplies. I.E. the image is not irreplacable. It's also questionable whether that image is essential to illustrate the subject. How much will it improve my understanding of Canada's involvement in Haiti in a way that can't be done via text? Not much I expect, it's a fairly generic looking image. So it fails the NFCC criteria on two counts... Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese missing

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/danwa/22/dga_0113b.html says there are 20 Japanese in Haiti and all are connected to the Japanese Embassy there. The MOFA is calling them missing until information is received from them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

500000

What's with the removal of the 500,000 estimate? Has the source retracted the guess?--Metallurgist (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the question. What is the rationale for the removal of the estimate, aside that no one really can make a solid estimate (whose I suspect has a certain importance, because of the rather peculiar local superstitions, whose, in the light of the collapse of the civil and ecclesiastical organization, can quickly led to widespread disorder, to put mildly. Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC today on the news said 50,000 dead so far.86.16.163.55 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 500,000 as it's now out of date. It was an immediate guess by an individual, whereas the Red Cross have now made a educated assessment after a period of time of 45-50,000. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair enough and good to hear. Although, at a certain point, what is the difference in statistics?--Metallurgist (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Total Monetary Aid Amount

I think it would be interesting to know the total monetary aid amount Haiti has received in USD. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why USD? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

According to UOL, USD 151 million. Missionary (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...because most of the numbers cited for aid are in USD? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gordon brown of the UK just gave 6 million GBP (~10 or ~11 million dollars i think?)86.16.163.55 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

I propose we move the International response section to a new article. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - 'International reaction to the 2010 Haiti earthquake' is standard-ish...I think. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment see the above section #Suggestion for a split ... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating that, it's a big help in terms of keeping that section from becoming absurdly bloated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. That would make this page a little bit "orphan" as everybody else would start editing the new page about the International response. Let's make this page a bit more "navigational" ! Krenakarore (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

I post at a site that monitors world-wide disasters (mostly medical) and they are stunned with the fast and accurate job that Wikipedia has done with this earthquake. So am I - it's pretty amazing! Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets all stand in a big circle and pat each other on the back! Or can we give ourselves a barnstar?
Just kidding! that's nice actually.  Can we have the sites URL? I'd like to take look! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Online Pictures From Haiti

There are some decent pictures ie Presidential 'Palace', here --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of them are a bit gory. If you have a queasy stomach, you were warned. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake articles needing a picture

I think we have enough pictures now that we can figure out a good one to go into the info box, in part in order to get the earthquake template to stop stop adding the category about the article needing a picture. :) The best one that I see in the article itself is IMHO File:Haiti earthquake damage overhead.jpg. Does anyone have any other candidates for a lead image? - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think an emblematic image of the destruction should top the article. Right now, that's an image of the collapsed national palace, which Wikipedia or Commons does not seem to have. I think it will be forthcoming once Flickr accounts start showing up with them from aid workers and such. As for a temporary replacement, whichever image represents the destruction of the capital should go there. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've added the overhead image to the info box for now. I agree that an image of the destruction of a specific iconic building, like the national palace or the cathedral, would be the best for the spot. When such an image becomes available to us, please replace the current one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an image of the National Palace available on Commons now. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Start forming context for this event

The article should start to form context for the rebuilding and political/economic issues in Haiti. For a recent event, editors who add information to this article should peek in at 2008 Sichuan earthquake. There are already international political issues as CNN reported that the first country to assist was the Dominican Republic, which has eased tensions between the two countries. A parallel with the "tofu dregs buildings" in China is the same lax construction standards in Haiti due to its significant poverty issues. Plus, in the second story, a guy named Hamburger is quoted. Surely that is some kind of value... --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research should be removed - Estimated population living in hardest hit areas section

This section and the table appears to be original research and doesn't cite any sources, just states which sources the data was derived from, with no indication that anyone other than the author has done the derivation. --86.189.13.123 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added a well-cited paragraph to this section, not knowing where else it should go. The table...I don't know what to think of it. Does the article really need a breakdown of population like this, even if it is well-cited? --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede: Aftershocks

The lede references the USGS when referring to aftershocks in the area, but this page lists notable quakes in the last 7 days, and thus will be obsolete in a week. Is there something more permanent we can use? Redoubts (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

After 7 days it can use the 8 to 30 day page. By then it wouold be quite unusual to still be getting anything over 5. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to create subpages on aftermath and casualties

• PROPOSAL I propose to split the “Casualties” section from the “Aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake” and then create separate sub articles for both the [[Aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake” and “Casualties” sections. I think the comparison of this article with the 2008 Mumbai attacks article is a good one (see Talk:2010_Haiti_earthquake#Suggestion_for_a_split) . Each section in the Mumbai attacks article has its own separate article and the 2010 Haitian earthquake is arguably a much more substantial event than the Mumbai attacks in terms of devastation and loss of life. Creating a separate casualties page would also address the concerns of Bigtimepeace (see Talk:2010_Haiti_earthquake#Casualties_section that far too much weight is being given to foreign casualties. An article on casualties should be overwhelmingly about Haitians. I think a good example of how the Haitian section could be written is the casualties section in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake article .For example, the damage done to schools, hospitals and governmental buildings destroyed could be listed. I also think for a few reasons that over the next few weeks there will be a lot more information available on individuals killed on the Haitian quake than the Sichuan quake . First, Port-au-Prince is the capital and cultural center of Haiti and many of casualties will be political and cultural figures, while the Sichuan earthquake took place in a remote area of China. Second, the media, both foreign and domestic, has much greater freedom to report on quake than was the case in the Sichuan quake. And finally, not many Wikipedia editors can read Chinese, but many more can read French, English and Spanish, which are the primary sources for information about the Haitian quake. But I also think that there is a place for foreign casualties listed by nationality (along with flags). There was a large international presence in Haiti before the quake due to rebuilding efforts after the 2008 hurricane disaster in Haiti. The mention of foreign casualties in the main article can be condensed into a few sentences, but then the full extent of foreign casualties should be addressed in the sub article. David Straub (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If a summary style is used, this article is kept comprehensive, and there is enough information to warrant subpages, then I don't see a problem doing this. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sub articles are good, and this has been partially addressed (for a different section) with International response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which we arguably needed even more than subarticles for the casualties. At some point someone should feel free to create Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, perhaps with Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks as a partial model. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it right now. I should have a Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake page up shortly. I do have to warn everyone that we'll have to put some effort into expanding information on Haitian civilian casualties. I'm not coming up with a lot of info (but hopefully the rest of you are).David Straub (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David, I have a feeling we might have to wait awhile for firm info. The situation is obviously incredibly chaotic, and I have a feeling the focus will be on saving lives/preventing further death from disease, dehydration, lack of medical care, etc. as opposed to getting reliable information about casualties, at least for the next few days. We might have to settle for giving various estimates for the time being, in addition to mentioning whatever specific examples are discussed in the press (a collapsed building that led to many casualties, for example). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a need to split the "quake event" from the "aftermath event" which seems plausible and advisable, although I see no reason to split the Casualties section from the Aftermath one. They're basically the same for the title aftermath explains it all. The sooner the better !
Krenakarore (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just split the aftermath and casualties sections and created a page for Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I half to travel out of town, so I'll leave the aftermath editing up to someone else.David Straub (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorest country

The sourced, and brief, mention that this is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere is directly pertinent to their ability to cope with the emergency and provides valuable background as to why they are having difficulty coping. In my view it should remain though I have moved it to Background from the lead. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a significant aspect of the destruction in Haiti and the government's capability to respond to this disaster. I don't know why it was removed, and I think it should remain in the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means move it back - I'm not bothered where it is provided it remains. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign casualties

I don't believe listing non-notable individuals killed is particularly useful or appropriate, as it seems to give those individuals much more weight than the thousands upon thousands of Haitians that will be determined killed. Notable individuals are of course worthy, like the Brazilian doctor and perhaps the Canadian professor, but other individuals are not. Perhaps when we have more definitive information, we can say X Canadians were killed, but that is for later. Grsz¹¹ 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the article contains pretty much every single scrap of sourced information that we can pull together. If we had a list of Hatian casualties, I'm sure those numbers would be included. However, as seen in many news sources, the foreigner casualties are a big deal, so for now I think we'll leave them in. -Zeus-^u|c 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:WEIGHT, which you linked to: first sentence:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

As you can see, we are required to represent what the news media has reported. -Zeus-^u|c 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Grsz, I disagree, but not completely. I don't think that there is any problem with providing the names and maybe the organization or place of origin of foreign casualties, but as long as there is only a very small number. For example, I saw a news article confirming a New Zealander had perished in the quake. If there is only a few casualties for a country such as New Zealand, then naming them adds more substance to the article. After all, if their death wasn't "notable" then maybe we should not even be listing nationalities or providing numbers. It think that would be better than a chart that says "Casualties" and then provides a list "Haiti, 140,378; America 378, Canada 71." That's really just reducing people to numbers. For nationalities that suffered a large number of casualties it is obviously not possible to list a large number of names. Besides, I think it's just as likely that other websites in cyberspace will do a better job at memorializing the thoses who perished and these sites can then be linked in the citations section.

To address the issue of notability directly, I think we should be concered with whether or not indivudals deserve their own page on wikipedia. This is an issue addressed as follow: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. Just having a name listed in the contents of an article is not in violation of notability guidlines. David Straub (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Section "The Loss"

In this section...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake#The_Loss

Do we really need to have it with its present content? It seems very editorial in nature, rather than presenting factual information (virtually all of what's presented is impossible to cite). --98.193.140.235 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It's gone. It is not encyclopedic. --Moni3 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wycleff and aid to Haiti

Hi- new to posting or talking on Wiki and want to comment on the relief efforts discussed in this article that Wycleff has given over the years. There are external links people can visit to find out how to help and support the people devasted by the recent earthquake in Haiti. Recommend those who want to support and give aid to do so through the work and support of Wycleff.

Lealani33 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

seaport

Is there an article on Port-au-Prince's seaport? If not, such an article should be created. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but do not know where to find more information about it, or even what to call it. Port-au-Prince Port? Port of Port-au-Prince? --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Port-au-Prince seaport would serve until a better tile comes around, since it's a descriptive title (hence lowercase)... as for info, the various maritime organizations should have some, and the international longshoremen's union as well... Perhaps the colonial records in France... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Map

Russian quake map

The Russian Map is pretty nice... should ours be like it? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of maps, the OpenStreetMap coverage of the earthquake hit cities has progress dramatically in the past 48 hours. All open licensed. I've uploaded Image:Port-Au-Prince and Carrefour map.png

Browse the map. This is the 'live' map with improvements still being made, including pinpointing building damage and refugee camps visible using post-quake GeoEye and DigitalGlobe aerial imagery (which OpenStreetMap has been given special permission to use).

Also available from OpenStreetMap: hillshaded version, downloads of shapefiles and garmin imgs (useful for aid workers on the ground?) Other resources and OSM coordination

Get in touch with me or anyone else in the OpenStreetMap community if you have questions or ideas for working the map data. And feel free to use the images on wikipedia! (open licensed!) I was suggesting this over on wikinews too

-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Topos

Somebody took out all mention of Topos de Tlatelolco in the 14 January section of the article. While I expected it to be modified, I didnt expect it to disappear completely. This is an all-volunteer group from Mexico trained especially for rescue and recovery from collapsed buildings and have been involved with disasters in 22 countries. Deserves a mention.... I cant find how the whole thing disappears since early today, however.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I moved the info to Response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake

1,415 Canadians Missing in Haiti

CBC and CTV are now reporting 1,415 Canadians are now missing in Haiti.[10] --Kuzwa (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam in EL?

See this. Directing to what looks like a collection of headlines underneath a lot of advertising. Looks like spam. User who added is Earthquake News Headlines (talk · contribs). --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is. Thanks ! Krenakarore (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AUF

TSR.ch in an article [11] reported that "...l'université de l'Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF) ont été également été détruits." I checked the AUF website and found that they have an institute called "L'Institut de la Francophonie pour la Gestion dans la Caraïbe (IFGCar)", and it is also called "L'Institut Aimé Cessaire" [12]. The addresses of the Caribbean regional office of AUF and IFGCar are the same, and from this article [13] it is reported that the Institut Aimé Césaire was damaged.

Despite of the information above, I decided to change the "Caribbean regional office of AUF" in the list of damaged buildings in the main article to "Institute Aimé Césaire", for this information is more direct and relies less on inference. Qrfqr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Disaster article template?

Is there value in developing a template for future disaster articles to assist with managing the development of an article from one day to the next? Something like a FAQ template on the talk page that will clarify issues and set rules such as:

This article is about a disaster that has recently occurred. Editors contributing to this article should

• Include facts that discuss the event dispassionately and reflect accurate reporting.
• Remove any claims or statements that are not cited to a reliable source.
• Patrol external links, and any remove any questionable links to sites that may be spam or false aid organizations as soon as possible. Move all contact information to aid organizations to external links.
• Maintain consistent spelling and grammar and a professional level of writing throughout the article
• Maintain consistent and full citations that include authors if any are named, title, URL or page number, publication, publication date, and retrieval date if the source is online.
• Use estimates of casualties from the highest authorities, and provide a range in the case of conflicting reports or initial estimates.
• Check for dead links in news sources every 24 hours.
• Welcome new users and anonymous IPs who edit the article, even if they vandalize. Ask for administrative action in blocking problematic users before asking for article protection.

Intended to be kept on the article talk page for one or two weeks. I'm not so great with templates and stuff, otherwise I'd make one to make it look official. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, and what you have above seems to cover the key points. The bit about welcoming new editors is especially important I think, as these sort of "big event" articles tend to attract a lot of new folks which is good but will sometimes lead to frustration from more experienced editors. The bad news is that I know about as much about templates as I do about calculus (hint: not much) and have never created or maintained one before, so I'm not sure I can be much help in setting it up initially. Is there the equivalent of a Bat-signal for template experts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to 'checking for dead links', I'd add a step about archiving external links in webcitation.org and using their archive when links go dead. --Gwern (contribs) 17:00 17 January 2010 (GMT)

I've expanded this template idea to a possible guideline, essay page, or Signpost story which I started here. Taking suggestions and alterations there. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Images and aesthetics

As more images become available, it is inevitable that they will be added to the article. Please ensure that the article adheres to the Manual of Style for images, which can be found here.

Please avoid sandwiching text, especially with images that are purely decorative. There is a sandwiching issue already in the Geology section, but both these images are important for the understanding of the earthquake.

If there is a decision between stacking images on the right, or sandwiching, consider removing an image in a section, or placing them in a gallery at the bottom of the article.

Please make sure all images are in the public domain, and have sourcing, date, and author information on the image pages. --Moni3 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

a Gallery section could be added. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti's National Penitentiary

I don't believe that it belongs in the article, but information on and photos of Haiti's National Penitentiary can be found here: http://sciencespeaks.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/a-mission-possible-one-groups-crusade-to-save-inmates-from-hiv-tb-in-developing-world-prisons/ (The prison was destroyed in the earthquake)Michaelh2001 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You can create an article for it... Prison Civile de Port-au-Prince

76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone decides to make an article for the prison, here is an article with a lot of information about its overcrowding and problems with HIV and tuberculosis. http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/palmbeachpost/hiv/articles-haiti-prison.html Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

I know this came up earlier but it might be good to choose and monitor the external links a bit more carefully. I've just removed a link to an obvious scam but given the level of activity on the article, some things like that might slip through. Given the high traffic of Wikipedia, the last thing we want is to inadvertently send readers to such sites. In any case, to all people who have the article watchlisted, please keep an eye out for this! Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That scam link was added only moments before you removed it, so thank you. It is a good idea to patrol the external links regularly, however. --Moni3 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it stood there for only six minutes. But who knows how many readers we got in that interval! These new (somewhat obvious) junk links are easy to catch. I'm more worried about a sneaky modification of existing urls. Pichpich (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article changes so rapidly that I have to keep refreshing it every two minutes, it seems, and then refresh this history to check what was added in between. I hope it goes without saying that it takes efforts from many editors to catch scams, vandalism, false information, and exaggerated claims. We have to work together to do this. Even leaving the article for an hour for the things I have to do today brings edits that have to be reviewed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody please fix the article. I came in to check the page and someone vandalized the article and removed everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.167.97 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect the article! DavidHøstbo (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately, it's probably time. lots of sneaky vandalism going on (e.g. random date-change at [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

deplored -> deployed

I cannot edit semiprotected articles, so please fix:
The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan has also been deplored to Haiti, along with two dock landing ships."
thank you 96.243.205.39 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rescue Action - January 15

Please Add New Figures:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60E5EC20100115 Haitian authorities have buried 40,000 bodies and believe another 100,000 people probably died in this week's earthquake, a senior official told Reuters on Friday.

Other source for same info above:

http://cbs13.com/national/haiti.earthquake.survivors.2.1429917.html http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N1552739.htm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3834995,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.87 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am having difficulty believing the 40,000 number. I'm actually having problems with the 20,000 number reported in the Miami Herald and think it rather sloppy of them to post that as a headline and not quantify how they got that number for over an hour. Even their 20,000 number uses a Haitian government official as the source.

I saw this 40,000 number last night, when the best source I read (New York Times) had mentioned only 9,000 bodies buried. That's a significant jump and the grave mentioned in the news sources I'm reading is 20 miles south of Port-au-Prince. The streets are still mostly impassable and fuel is scarce. I don't see how this is even physically possible right now. CNN has mentioned only one other mass grave with 100 or so bodies. I'm cognizant that the Haitian government source for this 40,000 number is probably stunned and overwhelmed. I really would like to see another source for this, like the Red Cross or someone who was not personally affected by the earthquake. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed on TV that no one knows the number, that it is not clear that anyone is counting the bodies being buried, and that there is not even an attempt to record an identification as the bodies are buried. There was one Haitian Minister whose death estimate was repeated endlessly in the news, although it was clear he had nothing to base it on. I believe that there are no accurate numbers, as there is no means to attain them currently. —mattisse (Talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo of victims being sent to Guantanomo Bay

The heading of this photo is misleading. This photo reads: "Victims from Haiti earthquake are unloaded at U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" but it should read, "American victims from Haiti earthquake are unloaded at U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," as the U.S. is only airlifting out American civilians and not Haitians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I corrected it. Missionary (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Recovery" section

This article now has a section entitled "Recovery" which relates that two former US presidents will mobilize to coordinate donation efforts. How is this any different from the "Response" section, which also depicts efforts being undertaken by the international community to recover the country from disaster?

The entire "Recovery" section is redundant and should be scrapped IMO. As conditions in Haiti improve, this section would be useful in describing how the country overcame its current situation. It's still too early for that, however. Missionary (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

While it is minimal now, there is value in building it as news becomes available. The split Response article will cover most of the recovery efforts in more detail, but that does not mean that this one should not summarize what will be happening. Parent articles are often the ones which most readers will go to first. To remove the information when it is prominent in the news is doing a disservice. If the genera consensus by editors who are participating in this article is that this should be removed, I'm ok with it, as I planned to store it in a sandbox, but I expect it will be expanded within 24 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I notice the page was moved without discussion. The previous title was not grammatically incorrect and was consistent with other articles such as 1997 Iran earthquake, 2003 Bam earthquake and 1906 San Francisco earthquake. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too thrilled it was moved without discussion either. --Moni3 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be a lot of links to the old name, is it worth moving it back? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is so obvious that the title had incorrect grammar that there was no need to discuss it. Also, 1997 Iran earthquake is grammatically incorrect and should be moved to 1997 Iranian earthquake. Would you call something "2010 America earthquake" rather than "2010 American earthquake"? If you would, then you are obviously not very proficient in English. :- ) (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be 2010 United States earthquake. Look at List of 21st century earthquakes and you'll see numerous articles titled like this used to be. It's incredibly disruptive to make such an action to such a high traffic article with no discussion whatsoever. Grsz¹¹ 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"United States" does not have an adjective form. The adjective form of "Haiti" is "Haitian." Therefore, "2010 Haiti earthquake" is grammatically incorrect, and keeping the title that way is incredibly disruptive, unless you want to have an encyclopedia that is a joke. :- ) (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says it needs to be an adjective? Does the earthquake belong to Haiti? It's titled after it because it happened in Haiti. There's the 2009 Costa Rica earthquake, the 2008 Chechnya earthquake, 2008 Lake Kivu earthquake, September 2007 Sumatra earthquakes, 2005 Fukuoka earthquake, etc., etc., etc. Are all of these major media outlets incorrect ([15], [16]). No, it's just the way you say it. Grsz¹¹ 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the incorrect grammar in this article too the first time I saw it but I didn't really feel like arguing over it. An alternative could be "2010 earthquake in Haiti", "2010 Haitian earthquake" also works. "2010 Haiti earthquake" arguably sounds the best and is the simplest, so I'm assuming that's why it is the standard form. Also the comparison with the United States does not work because "United States" is the formal adjective. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that doing an unnecessary move creates a lot of work resolving redirects. The grammar is debatable, Google gives 14m hits for "Haiti earthquake" and 4m for "Haiti earthquake" so there is no clear-cut issue that needs resolving with a page move. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If redirect isn't broken there is not a problem, that's a horrible reason not to move a page. That being said the current title is probably fine, I don't have a strong opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to move back, it wouldn't let me. I requested at WP:RM. Grsz¹¹ 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that Wikipedia administrators endorse incorrect grammar. :- ) (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of over IRC. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistent date formatting

Can we make this official now so we can set one consistent date format throughout the article?

Day month (European) or month day (American)? (Citations excepted for now.) --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Only now have I realized that the American system is not followed by Britain. I vote for American, since that's where most visitors to this page likely come from. Missionary (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, American spelling and date formatting is followed for American topics. While much of the material in this article deals with US military and government, Haiti as I understand it, follows a European style. --Moni3 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. However, we should adapt different date formatting styles to the convenience of the probable English-speaking reader, not to always follow the style closer to the article's subject. In this case, I believe the overwhelming majority of English-speaking readers will be of American background (as is the case with most articles, except for regional topics like Chav, Maharashtra etc.).Missionary (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style for dates and numbers, the decisive issue is the subject, not the reader. See "Strong national ties to a topic". --Moni3 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority of articles are most viewed by people from the United States. The consensus has been to use whatever style was used first or use whatever style is closely related to the topic. This article should use whatever date style Haiti uses. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we should use dd/mm/yyyy. Haiti follows French dating, as it can be seen in local newspapers[17][18] Missionary (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style mentions "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", which is not the case with Haiti.Missionary (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3 is perfectly correct. The nationality of readers is irrelevant; the determining factor is the date format used in Haiti, which is dd/mm/yyyy, the European format. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3 is correct. Of course, no one will be using "dd/mm/yyyy" will they? Try "dd mmm yyyy" instead.  HWV258.  00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the point was perfectly clear, but obviously not. Nobody will be using "dd mmm yyyy" either. For instance, today's date is 17 January 2010. No ugly comma required. Got it now? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"17 January 2010" is what I mean't by "dd mmm yyyy" format. "Ugly commas"? Anyhow, I'm sure we are all on the same page now.  HWV258.  04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Day, month, year, per Wikipedia standards. No offence intended to US readers, but we have clear-cut guidelines regarding this and we don't change them for perceived convenience. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I've corrected all dating in the article body, though in references they are still divergent. I'm not American, for the record. Missionary (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not an anglophone country, so the format used by Haitians is utterly irrelevant (we also don't write the article in French or the native creole just because they speak it). What matters is the first date format that was used in the article: was it dmy or mdy? Can someone have a look through the history? If it's unclear, how did the article evolve—with predominantly one or the other? The imperative is not to give editors the go-ahead to fight over these matters. Tony (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The most logical course of action is to use the format Haiti uses. I don't know why this bothers you. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree as well. Whether or not Haiti is anglophone is irrelevant. And to compound the issue by using the American "meter" in an article about a francophone country is rather incredible. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppose I'm not happy unless I'm causing chaos, but fwiw, I figure the consistent European-style spellings of metre and organisation will be copy edited in time, with the caveat that I cannot seem to help my American spelling when edits are being made very quickly to the article. The higher priority is verifying that all the changes and updates are accurate. I also agree that something needs to be decided to keep from rapid reverting. If this is a loophole in the MOS, then it should be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article only had one sentence when it was created. That sentence used dd/mm/yyyy for the date, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First edit is also expressed in miles. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't give diddly-squat which ones are used, as long as it's consistent. At least one conversion still required (65 km). PS, this is very good work; excellent PR for WP. Tony (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Retaining_the_existing_format. Tony (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If any of the folks working on this article have never worked with Tony1, that's the strongest praise I have ever seen from him. Paste that to your barnstar wall. Better yet, get a tattoo... --Moni3 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just use Canadian conventions? It's not European, it's not American, "organization" has a "z" and "metre" is spelled with an "re". 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that—I needed a laugh. Cheers.  HWV258.  06:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

External links section

There seems to be quite a few external links, and there's a note warning that it needs cleaning up. But I can't see any that should be removed... what do others think? Can we remove that warning? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would remove sections "Emergency aid" and "Contacting friends and relatives in Haiti". In an article about the quake, I find further information about the event itself to be fitting there. Not links to donation sites, valuable as they are. Missionary (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed here and here. I don't think any clear consensus has emerged so I can't see there is much point having the template there right now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The lack of a clear consensus is a good reason the template should be there Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The template exhorts people to remove links that don't follow guidelines. This is the opposite of what we want. The guidlines don't cover this situation adequately so we want people not to remove links but to discuss on here what links are appropriate. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who put the note warning there? Did they explain why it was placed, or is this a drive-by template issue? Is there any clear policy on what links should not be included, apart from the obvious WP:ELNO rules, for articles following a disaster? If not, that should be clarified, but that does not mean the template should remain while that is done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove the tempalte, as it's not clear which links it is asking to be removed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll place a note at WP:EL talk page to get them to start talking about it, but I think because this article will rapidly change, many of the links are temporary and will be removed in some weeks when the focus of immediate aid and assistance is no longer as intense as it is now. I'm ok with removing the template, and keeping the links sparse. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See here --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The rescue efforts timeline section

It needs to be split into a new article ASAP. It will pile up with new information in the coming weeks just like the articles on events in Iran and Honduras from last year. I don't want to get into persistent reverts over this, so I'm recommending this on the talk page for posterity. --Toussaint (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record here, I've asked Toussaint to write a one or two paragraph summary of the information in the Rescue section with full citations. I notice that edits are still being made to this section in this article, so it is still actively being worked on. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Missionary (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Toussaint, please cite this section or I will revert to the previous version. An uncited section is as bad as a blank section. People have worked very diligently to ensure this article is superbly cited. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this section has been messed up. The commitment of the US military is huge, yet those figures have been removed. Now there is a large, unreferenced section. It is ok to mention the many relief organizations that are helping, but largely this is a military effort because only a military can handle the enormous barriers to delivering relief under the conditions in Haiti. After all, Haiti has been under the guard of UN peace keepers since 2004, way before the earthquake, and still there was much violence. Someone questioned why the focus on UN losses and removed mention of them from the article. The UN losses are important because the UN was running the country so their loss leaves a vacuum. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the cited information. It's as it was. It's probably going to warrant a split soon, so a summary with citations will have to be created by people who have participated in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A summary has been replaced with citations and a hatnote to Timeline of rescue efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which I have to note has no lead, and needs some formatting assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think talking about Haitians wanting to attend church in their best dresses is trivia and minimizing the massive problems that exist there, as the press in general seems to be doing, trying to make it a "feel good" story. As someone who has written several articles on Haiti before the earthquake and was aware of the massive problems pre-earthquake, I am sorry to see this happen. United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti has been there since 2004 and has not successfully quelled the violence. Read about Cité Soleil. This is a chance for the story of Haiti to be told. —mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in the Conditions of the aftermath section, but I have read it on CNN, the New York Times, and The Miami Herald. The best dresses...ok, it can be taken out (I don't think it trivializes suffering but indicates how important faith is that they still try to find their Sunday best to wear), but all three sources addressed how Haitians are dealing with this spiritually. If there is consensus to remove it entirely, then it is removed, but in the future it should be included. There is another side to lawlessness, and we need to find a balance between stories about pockets of looting and vigilante justice and trying to make sense out of chaos through whatever means are traditional among Haitians. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This section can also use a paragraph about how medical situations have been handled after the destruction of all major medical facilities. I read on CNN that no general anesthesia is available for amputations and in another source (which I forget now) that vodka was being used as antiseptic. I have no idea how legitimate that is. --Moni3 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But the material is selectively taken from a source that says much more which the material in the article selectively ignores. Oh, well. This is an article about what we want to hear, and we don't really want to know about Haiti, just like we did not before the earthquake. We want to hear the good stuff. Haiti before the earthquake was not covered by the news, unless there was a disaster. We want to feel good about ourselves. Oh, well. Carry on with your article! —mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't own the article, so feel free to to adjust what I have added. Discussing what should go in it is part of making it better, even if others disagree with the information I add. If you're referring to the NYT source about Sunday morning, do you think there is any place in the article to discuss the way Haitians are responding to such massive devastation spiritually? Does neglecting this aspect of the article also censor Haitian culture? On the other side of the coin, news reports are often just as keen to point out the lack of discipline among the poor, as I pointed out a couple sections above, similar to the rampant rumors about what happened in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. As a group of editors, we have to find a balance. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just finished reading the article (again) - this is Wikipedia at its best! Congrats to all. Mattisse, I think I know how you feel. Today on Meet the Press they lamented, "Poor Haiti, they've had *bad luck* for two hundred years". What BS! The main bad luck they've had is to be screwed over for two hundred years. Also, I bristle every time I hear they are "looting!!". I just wish that every time they said looting, that they'd say in the same sentence that they are starving. OK, as far as the best Sunday clothes part. I liked it. It demonstrates a people with a deep sense of spirit when things could not be worse, at least to me. It is not flowery-feel-good-talk at all...to me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the image at top

Someone made a big ol' boo boo... So, I fixed for you all.

Good luck in the recovery.

-Pat

K8cpa (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A desperately poor country

So the article did mention that Haiti was a poor country, which seems relevant to its ability to handle a disaster. Evercat (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but we need to source how poor. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that it was "the poorest country of the Americas as measured by the Human Development Index." Someone removed it anyway. Evercat (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added it back with a source. Bridgeplayer (talk)

And I heard on the BBC Two programme Newsnight on January 13 that Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere - I had heard BBC radio news making similar claims that day. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"the Americas" is synonymous with "the Western Hemisphere." It's geographical, not cultural, unlike when people say "the West," which means Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Rafajs77 (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"the West" is not restricted to the countries you mentioned. You forgot to mention the whole Latin America. The term is used to described any culture directly derived from European cultures. 189.122.97.192 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

they make an average $256 a year, i think that would be a good illustrative figure.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Western hemisphere as a geographic term is not synonymous to "The Americas", parts of Europe and Africa also lie west of Greenwich. Is Haiti really poorer than all the African countries in the Western hemisphere?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Haiti has a higher HDI than Guinea or Sierra Leone, which are both on the Western hemisphere. So the claim should be changed to "the Americas" to become correct.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Online Volunteerism

I would like to add a section on how the online software community has really come together to aid the response. Three projects in particular are especially noteworthy:

• Open Street Maps http://openstreetmaps.org/ - has completely enhanced the maps of Haiti
• Ushahidi - http://haiti.ushahidi.com - allowing people on the street to send in messages about the situation on the ground
• Sahana Disaster Management System - http://haiti.sahanafoundation.org/ - providing a list of 130+ responding agencies, disaster victim identification & situation mapping

Disclaimer: I am part of the Sahana team working on the response TimClicks (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that. It might be best if you place that info on the Response_to_the_2010_Haiti_earthquake subpage. David Straub (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

While this info should certainly be placed in the split Response article, if this is the first effort of its kind, mention of it should be in this article as well. I saw this story, but am interested in seeing other reliable news about the effort. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will hold off until independent reports come through. Also, I would like a comment in the main page. TimClicks (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Road blocks out of dead bodies

Hi! I'm not a regular here, so I'm not sure what the editing etiquette is. I came across the reference to 'road blocks out of dead bodies' in the 'Conditions in the Aftermath' section. This seems highly implausible to me. More likely bodies were piled up in one place because they had to be put somewhere. As far as I can see was only reported by one journalist, quoted in the Telegraph article (Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks). Is there any way Wikipedia can verify this? Maybe if the roadblocks were seen by another journo? Otherwise I would remove the sentence.79.239.238.141 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it in The Miami Herald and some other sources. Facts are flying quite fast, and there's no doubt in a month or so, someone will actually check all these to verify that a third of these facts were rumors floating around. I can't explain why Haitians needing help would create road blocks. Some of the weirder and darker aspects to these news stories sound like what was being printed about The Superdome following Hurricane Katrina. --Moni3 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's why I became suspicious. I had a search around the net, and I too saw it in several sources, but always in reference to this one journalist. So what is to be done?79.239.238.141 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt there is an element of lawlessness and danger, but this comes in stride with every disaster regardless of where it takes place. I saw an interview with Russel Honore, the general who took charge in New Orleans, who said that when the people affected are poor the response to them is generally more hostile. The breakdown of authority and communications adds to these stories. For the most part on Wikipedia, however, we have to go with what sources say. Unless the facts are simply un-knowable, such as the number of bodies collected and placed in mass graves, we should summarize the bulk of stories and reflect what is being reported by responsible sources until stories are confirmed to be untrue, such as the looting of UN warehouses. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have wondered about this as well - just does not seem to fit in with what I have seen to this time. I googled it and was not satisfied with what turned up. I have deleted it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to overturn this, but I read it again in a separate story about Carrefour: In the absence of police authority, groups of residents have barricaded the roads with cadavers and burning tires in an effort to prevent looting. This makes no sense to me at all, either in why they would do it, or how it possibly prevents looting when it seems these people have no cars (motorcycles, yes) and little fuel. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it on CNN as well. But then they also said on CNN that a family that lost their child then had to go to the cemetary with pick and shovel to dig the grave themselves...later I learned that they don't bury their dead in Haiti. Thanks for not reverting it - I'm not usually so bold on an article that I'm not working on, but it seemed like the right thing to do. Gandydancer (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They bury their dead in Haiti. - 63.239.65.10 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

I propose that this category be restricted to "victims" (killed, wounded, trapped in rubble). Currently, as it is formulated, it is overly broad, and just about anyone could be categorized into it, like President Clinton, General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, Sanjay Gupta, any politician voicing support for Haiti, any public figure promoting donations to relief funds, etc. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion should occur at Category talk:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake#Proposal - restriction of scope

Remove or provide reference?

This quote is not supported by the reference: Elisabeth Byrs of the UN called it the worst disaster the United Nations has experienced because the organizational structures of the UN in Haiti and the Haitian government were destroyed.[16]

It seems an odd thing to say, and I'd like to remove it if a reference is not provided. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference, her quote was widely reported in the news media.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I did something too, but 30 things just happened in the past 2 minutes and I lost whatever I was going to say. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

aftermath violence bias

The following line seems to jump to a conclusion:

"Slow distribution of resources and the absence of any central authority in the days after the earthquake resulted in violence..."

How can we say for certain that a lack of a central authority leads to violence? Plenty of central authorities around the world become involved in violence.

It goes on to say:

"At least one looter was killed as Haitian police fired upon hundreds," ... so the police are in fact contributing to violence themselves.

A replacement phrase might be, "Loss of social cohesion and general insecurity following the earthquake resulted in violence..."

But actually the whole aspect of social re-organisation following the disaster is quite interesting. The article goes on to say that women have been seen marching through the streets singing; so that is a spontaneous event which is quite independent of central authority which is providing a sense of social cohesion amongst the survivors.

I'm not saying that a lack of central authority has not led to violence, but that the statement is not a factual one; it is speculation. If we could say "media reports suggest that a lack of a central authority has resulted in violence" I would be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.116 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

From the source: Both impulses — the riotous theft and the vigilante response — were borne of desperation, the lack of food and water as well as the absence of law and order. Given the conditions, it was all the more remarkable that a spirit of cooperation and fortitude prevailed nearly everywhere else, as people joined together to carry corpses, erect shelters and share what food they could find.

I disagree with the social cohesion because generally the violence is sporadic. According to most reports they are calm and socially cohesive, as evidenced by the paragraph about Haitians organizing themselves. "General insecurity" is too vague. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Préval unsure of sleeping place

In Conditions in the aftermath, this article states, "Even Haitian President René Préval was unsure of where he was going to sleep after his home was destroyed," and gives as a reference "Charles, Jacqueline, Clark, Lesley, Robles, Frances (14 January 2010). Supplies begin to arrive in Haiti as aftershocks shake stunned nation, The Miami Herald. Retrieved on 14 January 2010." I don't see anything in that article to support that claim, however. Perhaps I am just missing something? —Bkell (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Online sources get updated and some information gets altered. This was apparently altered and removed. I added it initially, but since I'm not sure I could find it elsewhere, I removed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bkell, just for your information, I did see the interview on CNN. The president seemed quite dazed. He did say he did not know where he'd sleep. He was in such a state of shock I got the feeling that he was unable to say much of anything "presidential" sounding. Another thing confirmed last evening on 60 Minutes was Moni3's statement about using vodka to sterilize instruments. They interviewed a doc and he said they were out of everything - using rusty hacksaws for amputations, cleaned with vodka... The doc took the journalist out and down the street to show him heavy earth moving equiptment being used to scoop piles of dead people into trucks to be hauled away. The journalist asked the doc, "Why are you showing me this?". The doc answered that the world needed to see that this disaster was worse than anything that one could even imagine Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a statement in print somewhere to represent Preval's astonishment, that should go in. Where he thought he would sleep I don't think is as important. --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no. That was just my impression. I am just "chatting" here, not suggesting any of this should be in the article, as I have no references. Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the 60 Minutes broadcast online here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/17/60minutes/main6108291.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.2 Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bellerive's comments about busing

Lack of clarity. Source: Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive said the government will begin busing people outside Port-au-Prince as early as Wednesday, while relocating homeless people to spontaneous camps established by residents within the metropolitan area where distribution of aid can be focused and some measure of sanitation provided.

That says to me that people in Port-au-Prince would be bused out. Others who are homeless would be relocated to the makeshift camps that will be cleaned up and used (fortified was my original verb) as central aid locations. The article says something different now. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the mention of buses, as it wasn't clear where they were being bussed to. I don't like the word fortified, as it implies the housing in the camps would be improved (or, taken wrongly, that the camps would be defended against attack). There is no stated intention to improve the camps at this stage, they will just deliver aid and sanitation there presumably so they don't keep giving it out in random locations on the street.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will print something clearer about these plans soon. --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll

People are trying to plan for event. There are about 6 people in the world who can estimate a death toll based on scant information. If Wikipedia is not the place to get it out then so be it, but the likely toll will be 250,000.

Good luck.

John Nichols

article says: " with as many as 100,000 deaths likely, according to the prime minister."

The BBC and the red cross just said on the 6pm news today that its estimated at 50,000 dead, and over 150,000 injured.86.16.163.55 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

my bet is these figures will remain (close to) future official statements, rightfully so or not. personally i guess it actually happens to be on the higher side , else they wouldn't have hesitated the reporting so long.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The current death toll is "So far, the total deaths has been counted at 5,000,000,000." something tells me that 5 Billion is incorrect, can somebody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.229.2 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, it was not a huge earthquake

Magnitude 7.0 is a big earthquake but not a huge one. This one caused unprecedented loss of life merely because of its location: right near the capital of a poor and overpopulated country with nonexistent building code enforcement. There was a 6.5 a few days earlier in the United States which caused only minimal damage. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

6.5 is much smaller than 7.0 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

also this one was shallow and so caused more damage. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

also, that 6.5 was offshore, not "in" the US Gandydancer (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically I believe the earthquake occured in US territorial waters (as recognised by nearly every party) so arguably it did occur in the US even if not on US land Nil Einne (talk)

Technically I believe you are not correct. The quake was almost 25 miles offshore, and territorial waters extend only 12 miles. Incidently, looking at the Haiti map, it seems that that little neck of Haiti is not much more than 50 miles wide and the epicenter was in the middle. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have looked more closely earlier and specified my terms more clearly. Looking now, I believe it's closer to ~ 35 km (~22 miles) off shore. However you're correct this is outside the 12 nautical mile (i.e. ~22.2 km or ~13.8 mile) territorial water claim of the US. On the other hand, I still believe it did occur within the limits of the US contential shelf claim (and is obviously under the continential shelf) as recognised by nearly every party, so it is still likely within US territory. Also of course also likely within the US contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone although it's perhaps questionable if that's relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's about as big as the 1992 Landers earthquake, which was magnitude 7.3 at depth 1.09 km. Or the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, at magnitude 6.9-7.2 at depth 8-10 km. In other words, no, this earthquake is not unusually strong or shallow. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was stronger and shallower than the 1994 Northridge earthquake... which significantly damaged "California structures" which had "building codes" ; and the similar sized Kobe earthquake also killed thousands of people in a country with "building codes". 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

bias

Whats with all the love for Wyclef, Cuba, Qatar, and Dom rep in the wikipedia articles on this disaster??? seems disproportionate to their impact or relevance. - 63.239.65.9 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What?! I've counted 34 mentions of "United States", "U.S." and " US " (not the pronoun). And that's not even including numerous references to USS Carl Vinson, USS Bataan, USNS Comfort et cetera. The one entity getting too much attention in this article is the U.S. Missionary (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention Isreal and Qatar. Others have helped as much and more. Cuba sent 40 docs and set up 40 field hospitals the next day.Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The quantity of mentions of Israel is really disporportionate (really? a "ZAKA" quote comparing things with the Holocaust?). There is only one passing mention to the Argentinian hospital, the only one working during the first days after the quake, also with a lot of Cuban doctors well before the US decided to send its soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.70.18.2 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3836254,00.html, "CNN reported that Israel is the only state so far to have sent a field hospital equipped with all that is required for surgical operations. Doctors from various missions send patients requiring surgery to Israel's makeshift hospital, particularly those whose condition is critical, the news network said. According to the report, other field hospitals contain no more than stretcher beds and medical teams who administer first aid, and they are not prepared for complex surgery" I didn't find the actual report (possibly video only, but for those who don't consider a major Israeli newspaper a reliable source, I did find the following corroboration (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/18/haiti.earthquake/index.html): "At a U.S. medical facility, doctors were asking why they didn't have critical equipment or the ability to perform surgeries, while a field hospital set up by Israel did." It appears that the Israeli contribution is of particular significance. So who wants to update the article? Pedantrician (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Pedantrician

This is an international effort. Scores of quotes about the stench of death and flies indicating where dead bodies are have been printed. This is just one. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Shabbat from Hell" doesn't sound as the best bit we can get. The "coniditions in the aftermath" contains mentions about the Dominican Republic, the US and an Israeli. It reeks of hasbara, especially when they were not there in the immediate aftermath 200.70.18.2 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

UN lives are not worth more than Haitians!!!

Why is the destruction of the UN headquarters headlined in this article: I think it does a huge disrespect to the 100,000s of ordinary Haitians killed in this disaster, to pick out the deaths of UN staff members as worthy of special mention in the opening paragraph. Are these lives worth more? This must be removed immediately! Orthorhombic (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to moving the names from the intro to elsewhere, but the destruction of the headquarters has a crucial bearing on the co-ordination of the recovery effort so should remain.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The destruction of the UN headquarters and the US embassy in spite of the known earthquake risk, in spite of the building technologies available, in spite of the resources both organizations have, underscores the magnitude of the human screw ups in Haiti prior to this earthquake.--Uncle Rice (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

It's probably time to start expanding the lead, but keeping it tame. Everyone with a keyboard or a microphone will have some weird comparison (the 1906 San Francisco earthquake of 2010! in Haiti!), and every natural disaster according to anyone who has ever seen it apparently looks like a war zone (although, oddly, many of the people making these comparisons have never seen a war zone).

The lead should be trim and reflect what has been covered. A new paragraph should discuss the aggravation to the destruction, which is Haiti's poverty leading to cheaply made buildings, the response to the disaster, and the impediments to aid reaching people. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed third paragraph to lead (remove catastrophic from the first sentence):

Damage from the earthquake was catastrophic. It occurred very close to a city with a large population. Haiti's political and economic infrastructure is vulnerable and government was unable to respond with authority. Haiti's poverty aggravated building construction, making structures weaker and more susceptible to collapse. MINUSTAH forces that were charged with maintaining order were themselves severely disrupted and rendered ineffective. The international military operation of administering rescue and relief to damaged regions was hampered by disorganization.

Good summary of these issues here. Something maybe should be said about recovery, but I don't yet know what. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"the worst disaster the United Nations had ever experienced"

(from the intro) In what way did the UN experience a disaster? The UN has nothing to do with Haiti any more than it does with any other country. Why are they even mentioned in the intro? JettaMann (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed This is open to confusion, and should be moved. Orthorhombic (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though it is a well sourced statement. A Google search for 'worst disaster united nations' turns up enough newspapers writing about it. So why are they mentioned? Well, it is mentioned somewhere that the UN is the primary organization that aids Haiti in the case of a natural disaster. But this time they have more difficulties doing that than ever before. Andreas Willow (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP may not be understanding the statement. It's not intending to say it's the worst disaster for the UN. It's saying it's the worst disaster the UN has been involved in, which is likely most of the major disasters in recent times. The issue is it's pretty pointless to say it's the worst disaster in Haiti, since such a disaster could still be a relatively small disaster in international terms in the absence of anything else. We also can't say it's the worst disaster ever since the obvious question then is 'says who'? What we can say is one of the international organisations who have obviously taken part in the rescue and recovery and rebuildings efforts of most recent major disasters (or as JettaMann said, the UN has nothing to do with Haiti any more then it does with any other country and I'll add an also no less) believe it's the worst one they've ever been involved in which is significant Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It says it's the worst the UN has *experienced*. The UN didn't experience anything, the Haitian people did. I don't see why this quote is of enough importance to put it in the intro. JettaMann (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But clearly the UN did experience the disaster. They lost the chief and the deputy, possibly 300 employees, and at least 22 peacekeepers who are responsible for organizing and administering relief efforts in Haiti. One of the reasons why there is a lack of organization is because the UN force in Haiti is impotent because of the disaster. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The UN's previous worst loss of life in a single incident was, if I remember rightly, the Canal Hotel Bombing in August 2003, when 21 UN staff were killed. The number of UN staff lost in this incident is more than an order of magnitude greater. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed this a while ago to "worst disaster the UN had ever been confronted with". They are saying it is worse than the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake due to the lack of infrastructure support. It may also have been the worse they "experienced" but that is not what is being covered in the sentence and reference concerned. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that will help. Personally the wording seemed clear enough to me, particularly if one checked out the ref. It's quite clear that the UN isn't talking about how bad the disaster was for them, but that in their opinion, this is the worst disaster they've been involved in which as I already mentioned is likely to be most major recent disasters. This may very well be the worst disaster for the UN, but that clearly wasn't what they're talking about. I thought I made but these points clear in my earlier post. Also since there seems to be some confusion, clearly anyone who is on the ground is experiencing the disaster right now, even if they weren't there at the time. You don't have to be personally affected by a disaster to have experience with the disaster, even looking at the photos and news reports gives you some idea and being on the ground working in the disaster aftermath gives you even better experience of the disaster. To use a different example, if someone says "the worst disaster we ever experienced was in 1888" (completely made up example) this doesn't mean they were personally affected by the disaster in 1888 in fact as far as we know there's no one alive today who would have been personally affected by a disaster in 1888. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti's prison

First, what is this source? http://www.narconews.com/ Who prints it? Is it fact checked? Is it user generated? It does not appear to be reliable. It's the source for this statement: The roof of the facility reportedly collapsed and caught fire, and family members have been unable to find their incarcerated relatives.

Can anyone find the name of the prison? I have not been able to. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't look like a reliable source. It seems to be a group blog run by a fellow called Al Giordano. I suggest removing anything sourced to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

its all over the media that 4000 prisoners escaped and some stole weapons from the guards. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See the above section #Haiti's National Penitentiary ... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage and direct involvement

I think discussion of media coverage should be expanded in the article. Certainly some broadcasters, CNN in particular, are now rivalling 9/11 in their round-the-clock coverage of the disaster (perhaps only the Katrina coverage comes close). There has also been documented examples of media becoming directly involved in rescue/communication efforts. Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN was widely reported as doing medical procedures when not on the air, and was the only doctor left behind in one compound when the others were ordered out late last week. Canadian journalist Tom Clark of CTV was able to track down the mother of a Canadian viewer during his time in Haiti. And there was also a report that someone was able to confirm their loved one was alive because that person appeared in the background of a shot on Larry King Live. There are undoubtedly others - enough for a section and possibly a spin-off article. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In a grand experiment or serendipity, whichever, my cable TV went out in late December and I wanted to see how much I could stand life without it. Maybe even to sound morally superior or something. The result though is that I have seen no TV coverage about this event. However, I have read stories about the coverage, and I'm tending a little link farm for stories that I don't think are appropriate at this time, but may be in the future. I found these and set them aside:

• Too much coverage
• Broadcast Coverage: Compassion and Self-Congratulation

--Moni3 (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And another example of coverage that I found so astonishingly detached that I was compelled to comment. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Range of photos

There seems to be bias in the photos. All photos in the Response and Rescue sections show only US rescue or medical teams, can't we find some from other countries? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

we've been over this before... US govt is obviously a good source for high-res photos with free-use rights, so thats where I've been looking in this situation...I've actually been trying quite hard to find pics that don't obviously show nationality but its hard... however I will say you have to be looking pretty hard to see the flags on hats etc in some pics...Anyways I only speak english so anyone is welcome to find licensed high-res photos where-ever, but I do not want to see a bunch of crappy non-free-use thumbnail-only images, just so we can satisfy some percieved need to corollate images with number of nations involved...66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

however you are right about some of the older pic captions and I will change those. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's much better now, I guess it was the captions that were really bugging me.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam Dixon died in quake

Add Sam Dixon (humanitarian) to the casualty list.

He was the head of the humanitarian relief agency of The United Methodist Church.

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umcor/newsroom/releases/archives2010/unitedmethodistreliefexecutivedies/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.152.17 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rescue technology

Concrete Borer for rescue

What is needed is to pre-position on a regional basis, as well as per earthquake country, a portable Concrete Borer. Concrete is porous and weak, and can easily be drilled with a 2 foot wide bit bore, gears, and electric motor, and generator. Also acetylene cutting torch for cutting through iron rod reinforcers. Perhaps liquifier and suction for concrete dust. When cries of ahwie are heard, one could drill; concrete would present no barrier; awkwardness of heavy equipment would not be needed; since the instrument of hope (100s) is there. Simple engineering and manufacture for the world community, and for the next disaster. An outsourcing project for any government or foundation?Zanardm (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Impressive

The speed, breadth and depth of this important article is madly impressive. Kudos to all involved. This is a lot of people who are now better informed and may be able to contribute. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphans

FWIW although it is OR so I am not putting it in, the claim that the number of orphans will rise looks a little rocky. There are likely to be 5-10,000 children orphaned by the earthquake [19] but if 3% of the population has been killed probably 10,000 existing orphans will have been killed...miserable of course but perhaps an overall decrease. --BozMo talk 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific papers about the earthquake made freely-available

Quick public service announcement: the Geological Society of America has compiled a number of papers related to the Haiti earthquake, and has them currently available for free download. Awickert (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice, Awickert. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean

The Commander-in-chief of Canada, Michaëlle Jean is Haitian, perhaps some of her statements should be included as a foreign-(pseudo)-head-of-state and prominent international Haitian? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

MJ is the Governor General of Canada, not the C-in-C.--98.114.134.238 (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The GG is the CinC of Canada. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Commander in Chief is very United States - centric language. Canada doesn't use the CinC term. The GG is the Queen's representative in the Queen's absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.41.120 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, C-in-C is a military term, and the GG is the military commander of Canada; the US president is the military commander of the US. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want an actual Canadian perspective, I can tell you that it would be highly unusual to refer to our Governor General as the Canadian Commander-in-Chief. The Governor General in Canada doesn't have the same authorities as the American President in terms of being able to order our armed forces to do anything. That powers rests with the Canadian Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The GovGen is the commander of the military forces of Canada, the PM is the head of government, the head of state is the Queen. See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/canadas-haitian-born-top_b_427921.html ... 70.29.214.95 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And Lord Byng dissolved parliament. Byng being the GG, fired the government. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, someone used the wrong title, but is the rest of the point well-taken? rakslice (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Images in Geology section

This section has a very succinct explanation in prose and three images, making it crowded and difficult to read, which is a shame. I was trying yesterday to figure out how to put the captions on the side of File:Haiti USGS body wave moment tensor arrows.svg, like in a table or something, but I'm not good at it and nothing seemed to work.

Can we make a decision about which images should be placed in this section? It's getting crowded. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't find "Haiti USGS body wave moment tensor arrows.svg" very enlightening. The fact it needs such a long explanation underneath must say something about its usefulness.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell I just took it out as it broke the section up quite horribly. It might go in Geology of the 2010 Haiti earthquake if that gets made. Here it is in case someone can find a way of pasting it back in without messing up the text:

USGS focal mechanism for the body waves of the earthquake. Dark areas are in compression, light areas in tension. Arrows show left-lateral relative motion along the fault, and the fault plane lies along the transition from dark to light between the two arrows. This motion is due to the movement of the Caribbean Plate (south, bottom) to the east with respect to the North American Plate (north, top).

--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is File:Tectonic plates Caribbean.png more or less helpful? Does it explain the way the faults moved or can people figure that out? --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. It shows clearly that Haiti lies in between the North American and Caribbean plates. In the text we link to Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault zone which gives mroe detail.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to the focal mechanism page, as that is how the fault has been identified, I personally find the figure very enlightening, but probably a bit over the top here - no focal mechanisms are included in any other earthquake articles as far as I know. Mikenorton (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me who added that fig and caption. Thanks for stashing the figure here; I'll keep it in mind if the geology section expands, or maybe for the general earthquake article.

When I get a chance, I'll modify the image for more of a close-up on Haiti and the Caribbean / North American plate boundary, and add plate velocity vector arrows - unless there are objections. Awickert (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

this image is good, for me. Wikipedia is not only for ignorant people. --Saphon (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rescue action section growing again

This is what I tried to prevent with splitting the section into a new article, since the article's getting congested again. I would at least ask those who want to contribute to the coverage of rescue actions to place the information in the relevant dedicated article rather than congest this section further with ongoing info. --Toussaint (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an imminent danger. A lot of information is not harmful, nor will it deter readers. I don't see it as congested. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I added to it this morning. I'd suggest some of the old information be transferred rather than putting new info at the other site. However, I don't feel it's too long. This *is* the story right now, and from what I am hearing rescue is not going very well at all. Watching the 60 Minutes piece I linked to, I can understand the huge problems they face getting the supplies out to where they are needed, rather than have them continue to stack up at the airport. However, in a later broadcast Katie Couric stated that she clearly saw that a big part of the problem was the bureaucratic mess that the various countries are involved in. Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

as someone doing a lot of the transferring (and my ips) I agree that we should keep breaking info on the main page and move older info... however I have no real idea of how to do that. So far I have focusing on converting time-specific info into generalized info, however that is not the right approach I agree. So any guidance on what goes and what stays would be appreciated. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"No security issues"

There are conflicting reports of the security situation. The Guardian's blog says

"The debate over the extent of violence in Haiti continues to polarise opinions. Dr Evan Lyon of Partners in Health, working at the General Hospital in Port-Au-Prince, told Democracy Now: 'There are no security issues.' One thing that it is important for people to understand is misinformation and rumours and - at the bottom of the issue - racism have slowed the recovery efforts of this hospital"

Can anyone find reliable sources for the claim that the security sitaution is being overstated and causing problems in delivering aid? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I added info from the deputy commander of U.S. Southern Command who said violence is less than it was before the earthquake. I've seen this in other sources, almost always juxtaposed with images of looting, corporal police force, or headlines that intone chaos and lawlessness. It does not promote clarity and seems sloppy to me. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that we have one right there - Evan Lyon. Partners in Health has been in Haiti for many, many years, and I certainly would trust what they have to say about the situation. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Democracy Now site with the interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/doctor_misinformation_and_racism_have_frozen Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add that in, but was looking for sources reporting the fact that there were conflicting views about security, basically something similar to the Guardian blog that I quoted but from a better source than a blog. Then I would feel more confident about giving this more prominence in the article, perhaps even a mention in the intro. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Of course on TV we see violent incidents and looting," said Alain Le Roy, the United Nations peacekeeping director. However, he said, "There is not widespread looting all over the place." [20] --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I really really would like to see this used somehow... its an important topic which ties into the region's history and it does have precedents... so anyways the rule of thumb we used across the wildly contentious articles related to the 08 elections, was that if it was a blog from an RS, then that was considered ok as long as it wasn't an editorial type blog... so I honestly think the first quote is fully citeable and it uses the more direct language I would like to see. Honestly if the R-word is showing up in UK press then we need to respond... that word has every place in this article if its from an RS. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph about violence and included the above. I also removed the claim that aid vehicles are being attacked. The source cited claimed that there were "reports" of this happening, but I couldn't find any.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Infrastructure/Damage

Why did so many buildings collapse? I can't seem to find information on WHY a 7.0 m earthquake would destroy entire cities. I grew up in southern California and certainly experienced 7.0 earthquakes. While very intense, frightening and certain to cause some level of damage, whole neighborhoods didn't collapse on top of people. I realize this is anectdotal, but I can't help but wonder. Is Haiti's poverty partly to blame for poorly funded/built infrastructure? Where is this discussed? It should be discussed at length, I would think. -Laikalynx (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See the first paragraph in Conditions of the aftermath: Haiti is one of the poorest nations in the world, and construction standards are low; like many islands in the Caribbean the country has no building codes. Engineers have stated that it is unlikely many buildings would have stood through any kind of disaster. Structures are often raised wherever they can fit; some buildings were built on slopes with insufficient foundations or steel. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, (I read somewhere) even their concrete is poorly made with a much higher proportion of sand/gravel, to do it as cheaply as possible. So, it would seem that it would crumble much more easily.Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--It is because Haiti never had good infrastrucure/buildings-they were mostly NOT earthquake ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.69.197 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To all editors - Regarding citations

I just wanted to clear up a syntax mistake in citations to avoid...when there is a foreign language involved in a reference, for consistency sake, you should cite it like this:

• AFP (16 January 2010). La France critique la gestion de l'aéroport de Port-au-Prince (in French), Libération. Retrieved on 17 January 2010.

The very common mistake in this case is writing the following:

• (in French) AFP (16 January 2010). La France critique la gestion de l'aéroport de Port-au-Prince, Libération. Retrieved on 17 January 2010.

The latter, in my opinion, is not what the cite template says, so it is not correct, even if you are citing it by hand (which I am totally not capable of doing :-P).

If you have any comments about this or you believe otherwise, feel free to respond to this. Thanks! -- Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 01:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that saying it is wrong, is in itself wrong, because the Cite template is only one form of citation and Wikipedia allows other forms as well, Harvard Style vs other forms have been involved in many citation style debates on Wikipedia. 70.29.214.95 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but for sake of consistency on this article (most of the sources are in the first format above), I believe this is necessary. -- Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks

Somebody recently (re)created List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks. The article currently has essentially no substantial info but that could be fixed. The question is: do we want to build this separately or do we want to keep this info in the main article? I'm not too sure myself so comments and suggestions are welcome. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be merged with List of earthquakes in Haiti (which should also incorporate the historical data available on the excellent USGS poster). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... That could work. In any case, we may want to wait a few hours until details emerge on the severity of the recent 6.1 aftershock. Since it occurred right over Petit-Goâve, there's unfortunately good reasons to expect serious additional damage and (not to be cynical) additional content... Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Take a look at List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks to see one good reason for putting them on their own page, there won't be as many 4.0+ as for Sichuan but there will be more than enough I reckon to overwhelm any other article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's already been plenty [21] Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note—the article is currently at AfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture rotation

There is a large number of related pics on Commons now, I believe we could rotate between with some regularity. Missionary (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian mission: Humanitarian assistance of Italy is second only to the United States

The Italian government immediately sent two military transport planes that used to bring medicines, food, a field hospital and the emergency medical team. Italy send an aircraft carrier with 920 military personnel aboard to Haiti to assist in rescue and reconstruction work following the Jan. 12 earthquake that devastated the country. The Cavour sail from Italy on Jan. 19, with a stop planned in Brazil to pick up Brazilian military medical staff, the Italian military general staff said in a statement. The Cavour transport Italian Navy helicopters, tracked and wheeled Army vehicles, and hospital facilities that offer two operating theaters. A company of Army engineers is included in the contingent, as well as 550 Cavour crew members and medical staff, and force protection personnel from the Navy, Army and Air Force. The Haiti mission is the Cavour's first since it gained full operational capability last June. The 27,600-metric-ton vessel is 237 meters long and 39 meters wide. The Cavour can generate enough electricity for 6,000 homes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9eUN0DLseY

Italy intends to cancel the debt the Caribbean country owes it, valued at over 40 million euros. Italy will also send a further contingent of 200 members of its military Carabinieri police corps to Haiti to help ensure security for the distribution of aid. The Carabinieri would be part of an EU police force to restore order and end looting on the island.

Humanitarian assistance of Italy is second only to the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.194.19 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Haïti

(previously posted in the village pump)

I started a wikicommunity help action at the Dutch wiki, and imagine that we can help on all wiki's as humans helping humans. We can support all victims in Haiti by placing a small 'banner' on our User and Talk pages. I used this one:

I'd like to express my support, my compassion and my humanity to the victims of the human catastrophe in Haiti.
Please, donate to your local Aid Agency or the RED CROSS

Code:
<div style="margin:1; background:#074074; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:100%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:center; color:#FFFFFF; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"><Big>I'd like to express my support, my compassion and my humanity to the victims of the human catastrophe in Haiti.<br/>'''''Please, donate to your local Aid Agency or the RED CROSS'''''</BIG></div>

I think from the humanitarian perspective we now need to support all those there suffering from this horrible catastroph. Let's step a bit over the 'wiki-only' horizon, and let's do a bit of support where we can! I hope this initiative will get noticed and followed by all other users! (You also might use other places like Facebook, Myspace etc for this!)

Yours Sincerely, Tjako (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

they are not American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.72.164 (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In or out

Do we use this or not? Need consensus...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Voodoo priests in Haiti objected to proposed mass burials of the deceased, because they believed it would cause them to return as zombies.

yes especially if we can find a less "charged" word then voodoo... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haitian Vodou is the link...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Yes we should use it. It's relevant and well sourced. And it helps to show how scientifically backward their culture is, which is one reason why their buildings were so weak in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is no more evidence for them being "scientifically backward" than the proportion of people in the US believeing in creationism is evidence for the US being "scientifically backward". In any case this has nothing to do with their buildings being weak, which is caused not by a lack of science but mainly by a lack of money. I am glad to see the word "zombie" has been removed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Poverty is the reason for poor construction, not religion. Vodun is not the scary freaky boogeyman zombie creating television special we think it is, and the press will inevitably print stories about voodoo dolls as quickly as they will about blacks being looters and whites being resourceful finders. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

'Keep: Voodooism as a religion is as valid to those who follow it as Christianity, Islaam, or any other. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Christians and Muslims I've known would not object to mass burial as an essential public health measure in a disaster. I'm just sayin'. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on a removed passage

I added this, and it has been removed. I'd like to discuss it because I think it has value in the article, and it may need to be rewritten: Inured by generations of political instability and corruption, many Haitians took the lack of authority in stride, using the Creole proverb "Grés kochon ki kwit kochon'" or "the pork has to cook by its own fat" to explain that they had to take care of themselves.

I've read in several sources that many Haitians are taking the lack of organization and government ineptitude in stride. I cited only one source, but I believe I could find more. I have to go to bed, so I can't figure it out now, but for those of you working on the article if you'd like to give your thoughts, I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should stay Moni3...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

i think its ok too 66.220.124.56 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it becuase it's blatant opinion. Per WP:ASF we musn't assert opinions, evens if they are sourced. To go in the article it needs to be rewriten it so reports the opinion of others or leaves it out all together. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Every reporter who has gone to Haiti since the quake has said something similar - you read or watch a variation of it over and over. It's not at all surprising since the people of Haiti have almost no tax base to support public schools, healthcare, fire departments, police, etc., and have always had to do for themselves. So I would like to see something that reflects this in the article. However, I do agree with Pontificalibus in that we need to source it correctly so that it is not just POV. I wish we could keep it since I really do like the way it uses the phrase to represent the people, but it's not really a quote... Gandydancer (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If we could find some similar direct quotes then we could report the fact that people are making these statements and give a quote by a reporter as an example. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The passage is an amalgamation of ideas: decades of political instability, poverty, unreliable civil services such as potable water and electricity, and many Haitians are not waiting for international rescue efforts to come to their aid:

• Heber said nobody expected help from the authorities. "Haiti is an abandoned country," he said. "People are relying on themselves."
• “They have nothing here, no infrastructure, no support,” says Francisco Morales, a Spanish firefighter working at the recovery scene of a hotel. “They are too poor.”
• The people, as they so often have been, were left to their own devices. But this is a people with scant material resources: those who live on a dollar a day, have no reserves of food and few reserves of strength in bodies that are chronically undernourished.

The Miami Herald report, with the Creole proverb, just states these ideas very succinctly. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK to say: Reporters in Port-au-Prince, reporting for the Miami Herald say..., or, Reporting for the Miami Herald..., something like that? Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A reporter did not use the proverb. The Miami Herald story says Five days after the earthquake, Haiti is surviving mostly on faith, fortitude and self-reliance born of years of war, hunger, political corruption and a series of natural disasters. The proverb came from one of the self-appointed security soldiers in a makeshift camp. I think the original passage summarizes it well. If the ASF policy is in dispute, I do not think this applies. An ASF violation would read something like "Haitians are a strong people who will rise again." But it is quite factual that people in Haiti are used to political corruption, unreliable services, and have adapted to post-earthquake conditions by organizing themselves in the face of no central authority. --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But there is nothing to suggest they would have organised themselves any differently had their country had a history of politcal stability and reliable services. Linking the two sounds like a journalist looking for something to write about.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, could you say, "In an article in the Miami Herald...."? Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But why would we want to quote an opinion that is not supported by facts? Are we to say "Mr X of the Miami Herald said that the Haitians are responding exceptionally well to the crisis due the history of political instability in the country, however there is no evidence to suggest they are responding differently than any other population would to such a crisis"?

From the article Moni3 quoted above "Haiti is an abandoned country, people are relying on themselves.", is a couple of paragraphs earlier another quote "People are waiting for someone to take care of them, said Michel Reau, 27, who brought his wife and infant child to the park after their home collapsed. We are out of food. We are out of water."

The fact is people are responding in different ways, as happens in any disaster. We can talk about the history of instability, but to suggest that therefore "Haitians are happy to help themselves" when many are blatantly pleading for aid is simply misleading --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good gracious, the text I wrote did not suggest anyone was happy. That's insane. Resigned to take care of themselves, maybe even more prepared. Is it "in stride" that is the term in dispute? Neither did the passage refer to the way that all people are dealing with the lack of central authority. Certainly some will be helpless and have greater needs. Try this: Inured by generations of political instability and corruption, many Haitians reacted the lack of authority by organizing themselves; one used the Creole proverb "Grés kochon ki kwit kochon'" or "the pork has to cook by its own fat" to illustrate this necessity. Others, however, grew frustrated... (and on) --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is what is implied by linking "Inured by generations of political instability" with the rest of the sentence. It reads like it saying "Because they were inured by generations of political instability, many Haitians reacted the lack of authority by organizing themselves" implying that populations not exposed to such instability would be less able to react by organising themsleves. If we left that first bit out, I would find it acceptable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Haiti's history of political corruption, poverty, and unreliable civil services of electricity and fresh water led to many Haitians taking on organization before waiting for any central authority. Groups of men coordinated to act as security as groups of women attempted to take care of food and hygiene necessities. One self-appointed security guard used the Creole proverb "Grés kochon ki kwit kochon'" or "the pork has to cook by its own fat" to explain that they had to take care of themselves. If not, is the first part the Inured? Is it the corruption and instability? This is what the sources say. Can you give me an idea of what you think would be acceptable? --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem in that sentence is the "led to". They would have organised the same way regardless of history of the place. If there was an earthquake in San Farncisco tomorrow, I'm sure people would equally as willing to "take on organization before waiting for any central authority". As I said above, if you can take out the opinion (A leading to B) and just state the reported facts (Haitian spoke to Journalist and said X) I wouldn't find it unacceptable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But this is what the source says self-reliance born of years of war, hunger, political corruption and a series of natural disasters. It's quite clear. The Miami Herald has covered Haiti's disasters and political problems several times, receiving a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage, so maybe the phrase in the source article is a rehashing of these issues, an acknowledgment of collective recognition of a recurring theme. Again, I need to see what you consider acceptable. Can you write this passage here to give me an idea? --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the only acceptable version is one where we don't say that Haitians' repsonse is a direct result of the previous politcal environment, as this is not a fact.

How about this?

The Miami Herald reported that many Haitians took the lack of authority in stride. Men coordinated to act as security, while groups of women attempted to take care of food and hygiene necessities. One self-appointed security guard used the Creole proverb "Grés kochon ki kwit kochon'" or "the pork has to cook by its own fat" to explain that they had to take care of themselves."

--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus, can you restate your objection? I don't quite understand it. It seems you are doubting the source because it does not predict what another society would have done under other historical and political circumstances? That's not inherently relevant to me, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that Haitian people's way of repsonding to the crisis is due to the political history of the country is an opinion, not a fact.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that any observational insights based on events cannot be used, the entire catastrophe has pushed all involved well beyond the scope of known behavior and Moni3's addition is both valid and useful - especially with the added sources...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not just an observational insight, it goes beyond that into opinion that none of the other sources support. Nowhere else in this article do we report opinion as fact, and I don't see why we should make an exception here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm thinking about this. Wikipedia does allow information in articles where experts state their opinions, commenting on cause and effect relationships such as the statement made in this source. So this begs some questions: is this article at the appropriate stage to do this? Undoubtedly, many experts will be stating their opinions on the efficacy of aid and the role of wealthier nations in Haiti's destruction and recovery, so it's best to resolve this now before the article expands. Is The Miami Herald or the reporters involved in writing the series of stories about the earthquake to be considered experts? I am unable right now to make a case that The Miami Herald staff are experts on social issues in Haiti, but is this conceivable that they might be with their focus on Haiti's social issues in the recent past? If not a journalist, would someone else's opinion be accepted, such as an historian, sociologist, humanitarian, politician, or someone with acknowledged experience with this kind of insight? The suggested replacement is inaccurate to the source; The Miami Herald reported that many Haitians took the lack of authority in stride yes, but because Haitians have experience with inept and unstable authority. Without that, it's a rather meaningless statement making them seem like simpletons. The proverb was common during the Duvalier dictatorships, according to the story, alluding again to political ineptitude. It's an incomplete and oversimplified picture without these considerations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, I don't know if this will be helpful, but this is the way I have handled it in my mind. What if the Miami Herald article had said something like, "Due to the fact that Hatians are a simple people with little interest in politics, and just most happy when there is food on the table and nothing more, blah, blah, blah", and someone else wanted to put that in the article? Now if a person says that, say George Bush, I could say why he's no expert on Haiti. Or if Paul Frank said it, I'd have to admit that he is somewhat of an expert, but seems biased. But I could not say that the Miami Herald is expert, biased, etc., because it would depend on which article you're speaking of. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is written by Jacqueline Charles. A quick look and it seems her opinions on Haiti and it's population are widely (1 2 3) considered controversial and biased. Sure there will be those that agree with her opinions, but do we really need to report them in this instance? Is there some important point here we really need to get represented in the article at this time? We have noted that Haitians are poor, we have noted some of the ways they respond to the crisis. Maybe some research will link the two at some stage, but right now such speculation is best left to the media and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I get what you're probably trying to say, but can you comment on this issue in a concrete way? Similarities and abstract comparisons do not really resolve this, and it's not going to help to discuss what if situations. That opens the discussion to tangents that may never be applied.

Unless it's expressly forbidden by policy, such as original research or uncited, I'm not comfortable stating or agreeing that something in a reliable source does not belong on Wikipedia. I think sources will link this to spirituality and the Haitian cultural response to the earthquake. This and other stories about how Haitians cope with death, chaos, and ruin appeared on Sunday, with many stories linking to religious expression and seeking answers. More will be printed about this as Haiti's immediate needs are met.

Journalists who write on high profile issues (Watergate, Vietnam, AIDS) often attract critics, but that does not negate their expertise. Again, I am unfamiliar with Charles' work on the whole and I cannot attest to what kind of expert she is, but the issue is that observations, criticism, analysis, and opinions in reliable sources can be included as they often are the more an article is developed. I do not think the article should be limited in a way that forbids in-depth discussion about nuances and difficult issues, and indeed these will be offered increasingly as time goes on. Including these perspectives effectively very much relies on how they are presented. In my opinion, the paragraph without the cause and effect connection is flat with little substance. To compromise, I am willing to search for more information and wait, if necessary, for in-depth expert opinions to be offered, but it is misguided to assert opinions have no place in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the referenced source had encycopedic content, but the original text posted here read almost as if it stated the opinion of WP or of the editors working on our article; most of the proposed alternatives either did the same or seemed to have been tortured into neutrality. Perhaps it should be in a paragraph that covers media reports of the opinions being offered of Haiti and its people following the quake. It seems to me that many besides Pat Robertson are spouting racist nonsense, much as they did after Katrina. To some extent, the current text of the aftermath section tells both sides in a factual, if limited way, but the words "negative," "opinion," "media," and "coverage" don't appear in the article. "Bias" and "reporting" only appear once each, and in a different context.--Hjal (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, please note that I did say I was not sure what I had to say would be helpful, only that it worked for me. I initially felt Pontificalibus seemed correct, but was perhaps being persnickity, but I learned and I changed my mind. I just thought I'd try that because you clearly are an excellent editor and at this point I really do not understand how it can be that you can not see that Pontificalibus is correct. This Charles person reporter is a nobody. The Miami Herald is reputable, however every paper is biased to their readership. A Miami area paper, for instance, is (likely) very biased against Hatians. See the Little Haiti article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles person is a nobody? What criteria fulfills a journalist to be a nobody? Does that mean that all stories written or co-written by Charles should be removed? At what point does the Caribbean correspondent for the Miami Herald become reliable? At what point does a journalist become an expert? A Miami newspaper is likely to be biased against Haitians? That's ridiculous! Like saying the San Francisco Chronicle is biased against Chinese or gays because once they printed a story that angered someone in either of those communities. What kind of source do you have for this assertion?

Concretely, this does not have bearing on the article in its current state. However, as more information becomes available about how Haitians will recover physically, economically, and emotionally from the earthquake, observations and opinions from journalists and/or experts will be more common. I'm concerned with Pontificalibus' view is that opinions do not belong in the article. They do. Ours do not, but the people who are creating reliable sources will form opinions. Whether the statement made by Charles is her individual biased (uninformed?) opinion or the result of her experience reporting on Caribbean and Haitian issues for many years is not resolved. It is such a small part of the article, however, that as I said, I'm not going to belabor it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very naive if you are not aware of press bias. I googled, "are newspapers biased?" and this was the first listing: The New York Times reports today on a new study from the University of Chicago on the political bias of newspapers. The study found that newspapers are indeed politically biased, but that the slant reflects the feelings of the paper’s subscriber base. Here’s the key quote from the Times’ piece:

The authors calculated the ideal partisan slant for each paper, if all it cared about was getting readers, and they found that it looked almost precisely like the one for the actual newspaper. As Dr. Shapiro put it in an interview, “The data suggest that newspapers are targeting their political slant to their customers’ demand and choosing the amount of slant that will maximize their sales.” Give the people what they want I guess. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a potential reason to exclude all newspapers as sources. That does not add evidence to the claim that The Miami Herald is biased against Haitians, which I find baseless. This is why I asked for concrete examples. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus has offered concrete examples, but you perhaps did not read his links. See here: http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2785&sid=e7ec5a6d1db01d580cecac5d771cb51c Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I read them, but they appear to be normal fare, letters to the editor, opinions from readers about the way complicated Haitian political matters are addressed, and they are blogs: personal opinions that would not be accepted as reliable sources here. I do not doubt that there are people who disagree with aspects of the way newspapers handle some stories, including the way The Miami Herald has reported about Haiti before the earthquake. But The Miami Herald does not appear to have a significant body of literature devoted to its bias, such as the Institute for Historical Review, or even FoxNews. Criticism, even intense criticism such as The Washington Post encountered regarding the Watergate articles from the White House Press Secretary, does not mean that a reporter or an entire newspaper is unreliable. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3 wrote the opinion with political bias, so I wrote an opposite opinion. But Moni3 removed mine immediately. Moni3's editing that remove dissenting opinion and want to continue only own description, is not neutral.--121.3.66.64 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the right decision was made, and for the right reason, when your addition was removed. This article is about the quake, not the political history of Haiti. However, I feel that you could make a good argument for removing the opinion that remains. Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If an explanation is warranted, the addition was uncited. It introduced a tangent about the political history of US involvement in Haiti, which had the potential to run the article off track. If American involvement is included, why not the French or other countries? Furthermore, I don't disagree with the sentiment (I did not read the op ed because it was not linked). My opinion about Haitian history and society, however, is irrelevant. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request Expedited Move of This Article to 'January 12, 2010 Haiti Earthquake'

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to oppose with no contentious debate -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Haiti earthquake → January 12, 2010 Haiti Earthquake We should move this article because a second, strong, (initial estimate is 6.1 M_w) possibly unrelated earthquake (in that this quake was 'triggered' by the first, but is probably not a true aftershock) struck Haiti on January 20, 2010.

The first earthquake (12 January) struck to the west-southwest of Port-au-Prince, but the second earthquake (20 January) appears to have come from a different (albeit nearby) fault, with the epicenter/hypocenter situated to the northwest.

A quick search using any of the available news aggregators (Google, Yahoo!, Bing, etc.) for 'second quake Haiti' will result in a large number of articles.

I have created the 2010 Haiti earthquakes article in preparation. I also mistakenly created a 'January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake' article and copied this article over to it, but have requested speedy deletion because I later found that there is a formal 'move page' function/process already defined. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience. Adams kevin (talk)

Creating separate pages for aftershocks is a bad idea. They are related in terms of both cause and location and should be covered in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The January 20th quake (now a 5.9) was located within the aftershock zone, it was not a separate earthquake. There is no need to change the name or create separate articles. RapidR (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly an aftershock. Same fault system, weaker intensity. We'll see what happens with the coverage of this aftershock but in any case, the title of this article shouldn't change. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The aftershock (or distinct quake) was minor; one death from a heart attack doesn't even warrant an article, let alone a move. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your opposition to the move but I'm not sure residents of Petit-Goâve would agree with your assessment of the aftershock's severity. Besides, the reference to this heart attack should simply be removed from the article. It was a shamefully stupid thing for the Times to write. How can they say confidently, a couple of hours after the quake, "hey, we looked absolutely everywhere and this is the only casualty..." This was just dumb reporting or at least a dumb way to phrase it and we shouldn't follow their lead... Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to follow their lead, unless you are inventing casualties. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is almost certainly another aftershock - one of many since the initial quake. I would say that, at most, it might warrant its own sub-section in the existing article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The earthquake in haiti is magnitude 7.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.124 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This is the only earthquake in Haiti, the last was during the pre-independent nation prior to 1804 independence. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there is another notable earthquake in Haiti this year (which is possible, but unlikely as Haiti is not known for earthquakes and this was pretty rare. As others have said, today's quake was officially declared an aftershock and not a separate earthquake. Even if it was a separate earthquake, it was not notable. TJ Spyke 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:I second TJ Spyke, unless there is another major quake in 2010, no need to rename. Any info about aftershocks can be incorporated into this articleDavid Straub (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This quake was an aftershock, support additional information in this article (and there is some here). Suggest close as consensus seems clear. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose even if it turns out that this isn't "officially" an aftershock, the general public audience which we cater too will obviously see it as one incident within the event.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aid Agencies criticize US air traffic control

In view of the dual necessities of providing humanitarian relief and security forces to bolster the Haitian police force in the aftermath of the quake, I'm surprised that there hasn't been any edits to the section criticizing U.S. air traffic control. Aid agencies can't operate in unsafe zones and the prospect of looting and other social disorder in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake were contingencies for which U.S. military brass in charge of air traffic control at the airport would have had to plan. I'm surprised no one else has provided this context. Omnia mutantur (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Interest stories

This is a great human interest story and there are some neat pictures.[22]

"An earthquake survivor in Port-au-Prince who gave birth to a son at the Israeli field hospital on Jan. 17, 2010 decided to name him Israel as a token of appreciation for the country that helped her. "

There should also be more about the help received from other countries such as Italy, mentioned in the section above. Stellarkid (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami Reports

Evidence is mounting that a tsunami wave hit after the earthquake, I think this should be included in the article, I will link it with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnieBG (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't they just airdrop supplies?

Why couldn't they just airdrop supplies and have soldiers trained in medicine and rescue operations just parachute in? Would that be so difficult when they see that supplies will not get to those trapped in time?--RossF18 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have expected this to be covered on wikipedia but it seems it isn't. Disaster relief redirects to Emergency management which only gives us Emergency management#Response 2. Famine isn't much help either. I found this:

Air dropping aid does not guarantee that food and other relief supplies will reach the people most in need. In many cases it is the strongest and fittest who get to the aid first, and not the sick or injured who most need help and assistance. In a natural disaster such as Cyclone Nargis or conflict like Darfur it?s not only food that is needed but also sophisticated equipment such as clean water and sanitation systems weighing tons as well as highly skilled staff to operate them, all of which cannot be dropped from the sky. If there isn't an aid operation on the ground to distribute the aid, the air drops can exacerbate any tense relations within communities with only the fittest and fastest benefiting.

...so maybe such info (properly referenced) could be added in to an article someplace but not sure which exactly? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, CNN was just talking about this now that the USS Carl Vinson is on site with 19 helicopters. They said for the most part, there is nowhere to drop supplies. Grsz¹¹ 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article should mention it somewhere. As far as relief, perhaps airdroping supplies might cause problems, but what about doctors. On the news, they keep saying that there aren't enough doctors on the ground and not enough medicine with people dying of just broken bones (bleeding out) - something that could be preventable if there was just a doctor on the ground. Don't tell me that there are not military doctors who can't parachute in near those parks with all the dying. Or, with those helicopters in the bay, just have them swing rope down. You're military - you're supposed to be trained to do battle field medicine. Oh, well. Guess appearances are what matter. --RossF18 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what the article is supposed to mention. That people should be doing something? That is not within the scope of what an encyclopedia article is for. --Moni3 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article is quite good for such a hot topic. I'm glad to see such strong organization. Moni, as long as there is basic documentation for relief efforts that's fine for now. ceranthor 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What and land on the dying people? And what about the supplies doctors need? Medical equipment and medicine? Are you going to drop it and risk it breaking, killing someone, being lost, being stolen (could be a particularly bad thing which scapels and the link) or just get the doctor to be a McGyver? Not to mention, you great limit the supply of doctors if your looking for those capable of parachuting. Sure there are obviously some military doctors who can, but even many military doctors can't and they are in short supply. You seem to be forgetting that battle field medicine usually involves perhaps a few casulties not thousands and thousands and dropping into a battlefield which may be full of hostiles but on the whole is still going to be rather empty, not full of injured, dying or healthy but desperate & fairly lawless civilians who have no where to go and are stuck in certain areas because their homes have been destroyed in an earthquake. If you're going to be of any use, you need to set up a proper field hospital, with supplies etc and probably even security and some people to manage the patients. Indeed even most doctors in battlefield situation will usually only try to stabilise the patient until they can be airlifted or otherwise recovered to a field hospital or even a real hospital. You don't have rambo-McGyver doctors dropping in and saving everyone with their bare hands. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should mention the reasons for why airdrops are not being considered or if considered, quickly discouraged, not that someone should be doing something - namely the reasons stated above, crowd control, looting possibility, etc.--RossF18 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article should. This is a specific article about the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The simple fact is, that most people recognise there are reasons what you've suggested in infeasible for such a mass scale effort. And none of it is particularly unique to this disaster. Perhaps some wikipedia article on disaster management should discuss such things, but probably not this article on this specific disaster since it's only a minor point and isn't so far even seemingly covered in any references Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been covered by the media now, and the US Defense Secretary made a response, which I added into the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed this. The article needs to cover what has been done. I also altered some other information about military ships that have the capacity to do something or plan to do something. This does not say what has been accomplished, and is unnecessary filler. Similarly, a tactic considered briefly by the military but not employed does not report what has been done. Unless there is reliable coverage where a significant group of people urging something to be done from leaders, these tactics do not report solid information. The article should relay only what has been accomplished. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If there is coverage of any aspect of the earthquake in reliable sources, it could potentially be included. If discussion of the pros and cons of airdrops becomes notable, then we can include information about that discussion here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree also, as a 2,000 man Marine deployment by ship from North Carolina (getting there in a couple of days) has helicopters and is considering the feasibility of air drops. Plus the analysis of the feasibility is enlightening regarding aid provision in such situations. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The source presented in the edit that I removed reflected that the US military dismissed the idea of drops for safety and logistical reasons. The paragraph was written to say that there were legitimate suggestions to do this, but the source did not reflect that, just that the idea was considered briefly and dismissed. I agree that if a solid source reports that groups, people, the military, relief workers, or whoever is actually entertaining this, then it should be included, but I do not think the article should take begin including what can be done, should be done, or even what has been dismissed as ineffective and potentially harmful. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Air drops were rejected "early on" (many articles, e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-haiti-pentagon16-2010jan16,0,4508316.story) but strategy will evolve over time as conditions change. Hate to lose information on how tactics evolve. —mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. How about a sentence or clause somewhere in the Elements of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division ... paragraph to say briefly that air drops were ruled out early for safety reasons? --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See [23] --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw an interview on TV (hence no source here) with marine commander deployed there by sea that his amphibious marine unit may use airdrops and paratroopers later, as that is their specialty. He ruled out immediate air drops only. —mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Miami Herald is doing that thing with the headlines without explaining anything in text, but they are showing an images of air drops. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm now seeing things being air-dropped on CNN. Namely, helicopters landing in fields and dropping supplies with people rushing towards and grabbing supplies. Comments were made regarding why airdrops are risky in terms of only the strong being able to get supplies and the weak being left out. Of course, they don't consider that now is not the time to think of equal distribution when no one has anything. Plus, those comments seem not to consider that the strong usually have family members who are not. But, yes, I'm beginning to see water and meals being air-dropped in. As far as earlier comments regarding medical supplies - no one was suggesting dropping scaples down on people's heads. Also, yes, there are not many doctors who can parachutte in. But given that (1) there are currently almost 0 doctors on the ground and (2) people are dying of rather manageable injuries for doctors in the field like broken bones, having doctors parachutte in with basic supplies in their packs (like bandages, pain medicine, and splints) is not so outrageous to garner such riducle. --RossF18 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not true that there are zero doctors on the ground. There definitely aren't enough but it isn't zero. Also as far as I'm aware one of the biggests causes of death is septic shock which is what we would expect. Also have you considered how long these 'basic supplies' (which surprisingly didn't seem to include antibiotics or antiseptics) will last? Not very long. Presuming the doctor isn't mobbed and injured him/herself due to a lack of security. No, the idea of rambo doctors is outrageous enough to garner ridicule particularly when they divert resources away from far better solutions. P.S. Broken bones and bleeding are two different injured. Broken bones could cause bleeding particularly internal bleeding and could cause death, particularly from shock but if you think broken bones and bleeding are the same thing well I guess there's no more to say... Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

THE MAIN PROBLEMS WITH AIRDROPS: People are fighting for supplies and aid in Haiti, so if they air drop the supplies, people will be killing eachother for it. 98.111.130.141 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so that should be stated in relation to recovery efforts.--RossF18 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

16 January

After 72 hours, rescue is probably going to be extremely unlikely. Should we start a new section when news starts to be reported from January 16 titled Recovery and aid? --Moni3 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit longer. ceranthor 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant for tomorrow, when a 16 January section would go under the Rescue subheading. It will no longer be a rescue operation. How much longer were you anticipating? --Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised by things relief workers can do, trust me. I was thinking tomorrow night/ Sorry, 16 January was UTC Jan 16 for me right then. :( ceranthor 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's best to wait a week, that way you can be reasonably sure that most people recovered will be dead, there will be almost no miracle rescues then. Remember the Boxing Day Tsunami, and how longer after it struck that people were still being rescued. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

People will almost surely be found alive for several days to come. In the Sampoong Department Store collapse, one young woman was rescued alive (and barely injured) after 17 days. Draggleduck (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Different country, Different conditons. Sampoong is in Sth Korea, a fairly capable country. This is MASS (10s of Thousands) casualties and collapse of an entire country not one building. Haiti was a basket case before this happened. Infrastructure is apparently GONE. Little to NO heavy lifting equipment. A few people have been, rescued, some die shortly after rescue. Miracles happen, chances poor unfortunately. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

However the fact there are so many people affected likely means there's a fair chance some people will still be found. Perhaps not quite 17 days but still for a few days yet Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some have apparently been found since, good to be wrong in this case. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

keep em coming. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or right (about the first point) :-) Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyclef's Jean's comments about helicopters

The edit appeared as:

On 20 February 2010, Haitian-American musician Wyclef Jean stated on the Oprah Winfrey Show that he was going to return to Haiti to "...look at the helicopter [situation]", referring to helicopter pilots dropping emergency food and supplies to Haitians from several feet above the ground. Jean continued: "....I'm looking at the helicopter, and I see the way they are throwing food down on my people, and I want them to know the Haitian people are not animals".

Jean's unfounded criticism was likely due to a lack of knowledge on the high risks of decapitations, serious bodily injuries, and helicopter crashes due to main and tail rotor strikes. Such an accident during the delivery of relief supplies to unsupervised landing zones might have also led to the loss of a helicopter and crew and resulted in a suspension of the relief flights.

I removed it for the following reasons, and I was simply unable to rewrite it:

• Naming a section "Criticism" is inherently POV
• There are already critical comments about the US operations in Haiti from the French, and now Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, who are concerned about US imperialism. Thoughts on consolidating all of this or just have them peppered throughout the article?
• The second paragraph is uncited and assumes what Jean is thinking. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph aside (as uncited POV), I think it might be time to come up with some sort of a criticism section. Besides the comments on US imperialism, there has been domestic criticism of the president's response to the earthquake; while that in and of itself is fairly US-centric, I'm sure there have been critical comments made elsewhere that could be folded in. If it were just one or two isolated incidents, that would be one thing. But there seems to be criticism of various aspects of the relief effort coming from different directions. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, although it would be best to stick to credible criticism from knowledgable people and organisations, rather than the above. There is quite a bit of this in the article already and I'm sure more could be found to start a section. However we should be wary of simply moving the existing crticism bits in the article, because its useful to have them were they are in the right context. Rather, a Crticism section should go into more detail on the points raised throughout the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether the criticism is valid or worthy of inclusion is a discussion for elsewhere. We have all kinds of "Response" articles. Since the criticism is of the response, and not the actual earthquake, any discussion needs to be at those articles, not here. Grsz¹¹ 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moni3: Your pulling the material out of the article instead of massaging it has the appearance of censorship. Wyclef made the statement which is accurately cited, and further cites can be provided to elaborate on it and his likely motivation. He may be a great musician, but even AGFing he was likely ignorant as to what was occurring in air ops and why the drops were made the way they were -extra cites can be provide if needed and his comment was indeed notable, unfortunately for the wrong reason.

As for where a criticisms are best placed, this particular one was not a criticism of an NGO or a National Government, so it would need to stay in this article -Wyclef didn't mention who he was referring to and there were, and are, a multitude of relief flights going on. I see no reason why a general criticism section shouldn't be established to summarize key points within the parent article in order to establish an overview of the public's perception of these events. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide sources that indicate Jean is well-informed of what is transpiring in Haiti, the media portrayal of Haitians, please do. I'm interesting in seeing them. I attempted for 15 minutes to rewrite the passage using better sources. OK! magazine is not an ideal source for this article. It's source was E!, an entertainment website. I'm concerned that Jean's criticism would potentially take more text to explain than it would to inform. He said Haitians aren't animals, but I am unaware of anyone who stated that Haitians are, and that statement is self-evident. His comments about the helicopter air drops are vague. From E!: The Haitian people, he urged, "are not animals." But that's exactly how he believes residents are being treated, judging by the news coverage of helicopter-assisted food drops that have been taking place since last week's earthquake. I don't know what this means. What, specifically, is he protesting? The sources do not say. Jean appears to be impassioned and upset and I appreciate that, but what can we use to inform readers? --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this information first came from a Democracy Now broadcast of a few days ago, and I assume that Jean watched that broadcast. Goodman interviewed a Haitian who told of a helicopter belonging to a Mormon church group that landed, and then took off, and then dropped "bread" to the ground. The Haitians were deeply upset, feeling that they were being feared and treated like dogs, "How would you feel if this happened to you?", they said. This broadcast is available today in full and can be watched at the Democracy Now website. Later today it will be available in print. I trust that Wikipedia will continue to do the great job they are doing with this horrific emergency. I do believe that Moni3 tried to write this up, but with next to nothing to work with, it was not possible. I do wish that people who are so ready to criticize would attempt something and write it out here on the talk page for others to look at, rather than just claim that the article is biased. Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaps

If anybody wants to try to hunt down reliable sources we don't have anything on:

• The state of the electricity grid at any stage before or after the quake
• The duration of the quake
• Coordination of the relief effort (we have initial confusion and the handover of the airport to the U.S. but nothing up-to-date)
• Repair/stabilisation of infrastructure (apart from some figures on the phone networks and the reopening of a pier at the seaport)

We also have very little detail on the situation outside Port-au-Prince. Yomangani^talk 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Democracy Now team was at the epicenter on day 6 and today's broadcast shows a film of their time there. Goodman reports that 90% of the town is destroyed and that they have received no aid of any kind, and many bodies remain trapped in the rubble. Today's show will be available at their website by around noon. Site: http://www.democracynow.org/ Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, the Red Cross did not reach the epicenter (Leogane) untill day 8. The link no longer works...

EDIT: Oh! The little wikipedia mice have been busy night and day! See the wikipedia Léogâne entry. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We are the World, Haiti, Grammies

From what Kiss 107.1 FMCincinnati and Lionel Richie report, Lionel plans to get as many artist at the Grammy Awards he can to sing We are the World for Haiti. Yami (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

HAARP Conspiracy

It it evident that HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) was very 'active' preceding the incident. Conspiracy theorist are accusing the facility of causing the incident if not intentionally specifically on the Haiti capital. See Induction Magnetometer |HAARP Induction Magnometer January 11 2010 --Lastnightat3am (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wow and now that info has TWO cites... keep up the good journalism people... Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PPS it probably doesn't belong in lede (as it is now) so where do we put it? Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In the trash can ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind about having that type of information in the article, because of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Venezuela and Hugo Chavez are clearly in opposition to the American government. Until we get the actual primary source, the actual "Russian report", then we supported. Right now this could be bologni anti-American propaganda. Trash it!--Amnesico29 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• The key is to give it as an accusation of the government of Venezuela. The content of the accusation is highly questionable but the fact that a government is making echo of it is an important political event. (similar to Bush and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) The article could say "Venezuelan government is saying this and that..."  franklin  00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My bowels were also very active before the earthquake. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that the rest of the internet is for. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

you guys can play funny all you want, but I will keep adding it until one of you comes up with a single exclusion criteria (at least) for cited material... references to trashcans, diarhea, and bologna do not qualify sorry! Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories will do for starters. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

..and apparently I'm going to assist by incorrectly reverting it's removal by randomly pressing buttons. This info is patent nonsense. It also fails via WP:UNDUE. Don't put it back without consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones is claiming secret sources indicating that the earthquake was caused by nuclear test. More information on his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.208.209 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More WP:Fringe stuff, seismologists have put a lot of effort into detecting nuclear tests and discriminating them from earthquakes, he can think what he likes, just don't add it to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is absolute nonsense and should not be inserted into this article, per WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:ASF. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If any of it is put in though, please make sure it is correctly linked. Yomangani^talk 13:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there is just plain WP:HOAX...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If HAARP's own magnetometer shows the most activity on it in a year happened on that date, i think it is significant enough to add! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.214.74 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

interesting to note, that one user advocating exclusion, hasn't ever edited here, until HAARP was mentioned. Oh well, to the rest of you... your fringe argument doesn't work. Maybe you don't realize that the Russian Duma has passed resolutions concerning HAARP as a weapon, one of HAARP's US patent holders, is on record as thinking its a weapon, and even the US state dept is investigating other ionic heaters possibilites as weapons. Go check it out before you tell me it fails fringe... that wp's "possible weapon" section alone is longer than some our sections on this page...

anyways the other two points are RS and UNDUE, and considering one the text's cites is from venezuelan public broadcasting I think we have sufficient RS. As for UNDUE I think you are right as far as the lede goes (as i said then) but I don't think its "undue" weight in one of the subsections, or as a last resort in one of the subarticles... we have thousands and thousands of words on the various pages, so two sentences is basically NEVER undue if it has cites. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fancy, I'm not sure what information you want to include. Could you write it out here with the references you would like to use. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem confused. This is an article and talk page on the 2010 Haiti earthquake. There is some merit to discussing whether we should mention conspirary theories about HAARP contributing to the earthquake. There's no merit and it's irrelevant whether HAARP is a weapon. If the Russian Duma or the US State Department or the patent holders have stated they consider it possible HAARP contributed to this earthquake then their views may be relevant, otherwise they're not. I would note the HAARP article other then looking a royal mess, makes no mention of 'quake' at all which strongly suggests this conspiracy theory definitely fails fringe. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the hypothesis that HAARP caused the quake is about as credible as Pat Robertson's hypothesis that the Devil caused the earthquake. I suggest the two should be handled in roughly the same way. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the hypothesis is more credible than Pat Robertson's hypothesis, 1- Because HAARP is real (regardless of purpose) and the devil is a fictional character (scientifically) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.214.74 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that HAARP's magnetometer shows alot of activity on these days, and does not for an extensive amount of time surrounding this date. If this does not mean HAARP caused it, what other conclusions can be drawn from this evidence. Could it be possible that a solar storm caused the earthquakes? And I think the fact that HAARPs magnetometer's readings are not being investigated reveals something as well. There are many government employed scientists that monitor this on a daily basis, why has this reading in the very least not been explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.214.74 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. It is my opinion that no mention of a link between HAARP and the earthquake should be given as it is very questionable the sources of this information. Now, the government of Venezuela through its news television organ ViVe [24] has made declarations in this direction. Whether the content of these accusations is highly questionable (I in my opinion consider is the craziest thing ever done by the Venezuelan government), it is a historic event and important news the fact that a government has taken such a step in rising such accusations. I see it similar to Bush saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, although even more wildly conceived. Whether the content of the accusation is true or not the act of the accusation is an important information as it constitutes a political event from a government to another.  franklin  00:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but should it be mentioned in this article? Hugo Chávez once called G.W. Bush "the Devil", yet there is no mention of this fact (nor should there be) in George W. Bush. The WMD claims are different, as they were taken seriously by governments and the mainstream media at one time, while this bit of nonsense will (I promise) always remain confined to Coast to Coast AM and similar outlets. Now, the fact that Venezuela has made these silly claims may itself be notable, and if so it should be included somewhere in Wikipedia, just not here. There may be an appropriate Venezuela-related article for this, though I can't find one at the moment. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) The article is about the earthquake. This is clearly a fringe theory. Yes it comes from a national government but has no bearing on the situation we are trying to cover in the article (unlike the weapons of mass destruction claim which was a notable aspect of the invasion of Iraq). Perhaps you might consider saying something in United States – Venezuela relations? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but can we maybe agree to a section on the correlation of data from HAARP's own magnetometer on that day in relation to the dates surrounding the Haiti 2010 Earthquake, with no mention of Venezuela's accusations, because the information of activity on HAARP's magnetometer was provided by HAARP, with the emphasis on rare activity on those days. Or a brief explanation linking to a seperate page on HAARP activity in relation to natural disasters or something. Please reference HAARP Magnetometer reading days before quake, hosted on government run site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.28.95 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

re: the magnetometer data, there would need to be RS with experts talking about seismo-ionospheric coupling evidence for this event. There's no reason to add it unless the issue is raised in RS...and I mean sensible RS quoting scientists who are studying ionospheric precursors and related issues.....i.e. no crazies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

re:the magnetometer data, Such a reading on the magnetometer, in plain speaking terms, indicates an abnormally high level of electro-magnetic activity. I will look into RS with "experts", and i do understand what you mean by "no crazies", but "craziness" is itself a relative term and cannot be part of the criteria for entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.214.74 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is part of the criteria for entry per WP:FRINGE, "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" and WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Whereas changes in the electric currents in the ionosphere before and after major earthquakes have been studied for decades. It's mainstream science with lots of work being published in all sorts of peer reviewed academic journals. I guess HAARP's magnetometer might be able to see these kind of seismo-ionospheric coupling events because their site says "Magnetic field variations of interest in this program are those induced by electric currents in the ionosphere". Not sure you will find anyone willing to say anything much yet just based on data from the HAARP magnetometer in Alaska though. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but discoveries are happening at such a growing exponential rate that pretty soon the world will be going by with only small portions of world-changing discoveries being published on Wikipedia. But I guess that is the capacity of Wikipedia, so I guess I do agree if this entry actually requires scientific proof written by a Phd.173.183.28.95 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What if it's on the mainstream media? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9QtZkT8OBQ188.222.76.52 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

HAARP could have this device, which would indicate that the activity HAARP detected could be in relation to the quake see - U.S. Patent 4980644 - Earthquake detecting magnetometer with movable magnetic compass needle and method of using same - An earthquake predicting magnetometer having a compass assembly with a graduated dial and an adjustbly positionable magnet assembly having magnetic poles oriented opposite the direction markings on the compass dial. The device is oriented to the cardinal points using the compass. Then the magnet is adjusted in proximity to the compass assembly until the magnet counterbalances the magnetosphere of the earth. This leaves the compass needle facing east or west. When the magnetosphere of earth weakens prior to a major seismic event, the compass needle will point to the south on a graduated scale on the dial, indicating an imminent quake of large magnitude.--Indlebe (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)