Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Horribly NPOV

The article doesn't criticize the US relief effort enough. I mean really, come on. This is wikipedia and when people come here so they can pretend to be concerned and informed about international events they want to know what they can criticize the US for, and how America is obviously screwing everything up again. This is utterly ridiculous that wikipedia isn't properly fulfilling this need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.143.59 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether you are being sarcastic or not, maybe you could suggest some examples of improvements? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was also dissapointed with the POV in that regard but I would not say that the U.S. is screwing anything up. It's more a perception thing. From the newspapers I have read, the critism of the U.S. is limited to accusations by the survivors (and other countries) that the U.S. is acting as an occupation force as they have taken over the airports and palace and have spent more time setting up a presence than delivering aid. In fact Doctors Without Borders, the Mexican government and the EU have all complained that they have had aid shipments turned away because the U.S. Military has priority at the airports. The belief is widespread enough that it deserves mention, in fact I'm seeing more critical articles than favourable. For example Time magazine wrote: (Haiti) for all intents and purposes, became the 51st state at 4:53 p.m. Tuesday in the wake of its deadly earthquake. If not a state, then at least a ward of the state. Wayne (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, when any other country would like to even put in 10% of the relief effort of what the US is doing, then they can have some leeway in priority as well. But as long as hundreds of billions of dollars are only coming from the US, I say some countries should axe the whole hating America thing. Plus there's also consideration who is exactly saying it is a "military occupation." Hugo Chavez is obviously one of the loud mouths on that front. But yes, of course, America would have so much to gain in controlling Haiti--the poorest country in the Western hemisphere with a GDP ranked around 130. Don't let the massive relief efforts fool you--America is really out to get your country and steal it. 98.244.246.157 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You obviously are unware of the past history of Haiti. The U.S. did militarily occupy the country for a considerable time in the past and U.S. Marines took part in the 2004 coup so Haitians tend to be suspicious of motives, especially as they blame the U.S. for the countries poverty. It's not just Chavez, as well as France almost all the South American countries are also making the claim. They are only the most vocal, I've also read it in several British newspapers, the China Daily and even some American newspapers. As I said..it's a perception thing regardless of the reality but it is still a large issue with the survivors. Wayne (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So I guess when Rush Limbaugh criticized President Obama for sending military aid to Haiti after the earthquake struck; he really was trying to protect Haitians from the US, because he was really on the side of the earthquake victims...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why try to be facetious instead of producing sources to discredit or suggesting how to include it? If you want U.S. sources then how about CNN? -"Haitians question why so many US troops were pouring into the country. They say they need more food and water and fewer guys with guns" or "American doctors at the hospital seemed mystified by the military presence. They say there has never been a security problem here at the hospital, but there is a problem of getting supplies in. They can get nine helicopters of troops in, but some of the doctors here say if they can do that, then why can't they also bring with them IV fluids and other much needed supplies" or the BBC, "Aid that has thus far arrived at the port is being driven for 45 minutes across the city to the airport, where it is piling up and not being distributed to those who need it" or the Guardian, "since establishing its unilateral control over the Port-au-Prince airport and port facilities, and assuming essential governmental powers in Haiti, the US military has given the beefing up of its presence in the country priority over the provision of aid." Wayne (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami

Can someone fix up the geographic location of Petit Paradis ? There are apparently four or more villages in Haiti by this name... The arrondissement and department should be added to the article. and if someone could verify the geographic coordinates the author placed in the article, that would be nice. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a guess, but could do with a source describing it's location so this can be verified. see Talk:Petit Paradis --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos!

To everybody who has been working on this article; Great job! I've been visiting this article almost daily to find out new info on this disaster and have seen the article only get better. I especially like the extensive use of Summary Style by moving much of the detail to daughter articles, which leaves this article at a very readable length. Please keep up the great work by making sure we document this catastrophe well. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 16:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

pic captions

please stop removing sourced data from the pic caps unless you have a better rationale than "irrelevant"... please remember this is sourced data, thanx. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some pic captions that had been changed to describe more about the details of the military hardware than the rescue effort. Most people wanting to find out more about the earthquake would expect to read things like "A heavy-lifting helicopter" rather than "An MH-53E Sea Dragon of HM-15". Also we are in danger of losing NPOV just because most photos available with a suitable licence depict US military, when in fact many other nations are participating in the rescue effort. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

As it is almost the rule in Wikipedia I wonder if it is time to come up with the section Criticism to response to the 2010 Earthquake. Suggestions and thoughts welcome.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from my experience criticism articles are generally discouraged since they often become magnets for unsourced info and POV statements. In most cases itergration into revelant sections is prefered.--76.66.190.114 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

La Vallee de Jacmel?

Is the La Vallée, Sud-Est community the same as La Vallee de Jacmel indicated in the news article: [1] ? It would have the hospital Saint-Joseph. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Counterpart operations?

If Unified Response is the US military effort, and Hestia is the Canadian military effort, what about those of other countries (like France, which has two warships there already...) ?

76.66.192.206 (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Modified a quote to ensure NPOV and the whole statement.

In the Recovery section I added to the following statement:

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and French Minister of State for Cooperation Alain Joyandet criticised the perceived preferential treatment for U.S. aid arriving at the U.S.-controlled Toussaint L'Ouverture International Airport.

Left as it, it simply looks as a stab by the French at the US. However that statement was immediately followed, from the same citation, with:

"There was no protest from the French government regarding the management of the airport of Port-au-Prince," said the spokesperson of the Quai d'Orsay, Bernard Valero.

The Quai d'Orsay being the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We can either leave this as I have modifired it, or remove it in its entirety for the sake of article length. But to leave it as it was would be misleading as French anti-US bias. Which is simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradon (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chavez's claims of earthquake weapon

I'm surprised that there is no mention in the article of this. Also some general critiques of "US occupation" by Venezuela and Bolivia here. Esn (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking the earthquake to a weapon is a fringe theory and so not covered in this article. However the accusations are covered in United States – Venezuela relations. Criticism of the US military presence has come from several quaters and might be worth mention. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a fringe theory made notable by the very fact that the accusation comes from a head of state? Esn (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can find only one link, and that one is a Russian news site/paper? for this suggestion that Chavez claims that the US is responsible for the quake. Can those people who keep posting about why this information is not included in the article provide some reliable links? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider an example. Japan's first lady, Miyuki Hatoyama, claims to have been to Venus on a UFO, a claim that is widely covered in the media. However, we recognise that believing in her claim would be a fringe theory, although the claim itself is notable. This is why it is not included in the the Venus article but in the Miyuki Hatoyama article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing for this information to be in the article, however I feel that it is important to point out that a "fringe theory" is not necessarily a nutty theory. At one time "exploding cigars" and such would have been a "fringe theory" in the US, but it certainly would not have been in Cuba (and it turned out they were correct). In the same way, this information, as nutty as it seems to someone in the US, does not seem crazy at all to many people in Central or South America, and for good reason.Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What if it's on the mainstream media? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9QtZkT8OBQ188.222.76.52 Taken from -(talk) 10:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)by --Indlebe (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not mainstream media. I have tried very hard to research this. It seems to be a case of Spain picking up on a report from Venezuela. The report was issued on a Venezuela news site, however I have been unable to tie Chavez directly to the report - as far as I can tell, Spain did that - Chavez could have said something similar, but I have not been able to find it. At any rate, while it may or may not be a "fringe theory", it certainly is on the fringes ar far as reporting goes. Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Youtube link that was posted (with malformed URL - here is the correct link) is the official Youtube channel of Russia Today - that particular video aired in their normal news programming. But you're right in that the attribution is unclear. To quote the link in my first post: "The following article was written and published by VIVE TV, a Venezuelan public channel. The video was broadcasted by Russia Today, a Russian public channel. Oddly enough, the Venezuelan channel designates the Russian Army as the source of these claims which, in turn, attributes them to President Chávez." Esn (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to start a new wiki project entitled "Wikiwackjob.org". That's where we can put stuff like Hugo Chevez's remarks on secret weapons and earthquakes, everything Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said about Israel, Dick Cheney's obsessions with weapons of mass destruction and all the alien sightings. The only sources allowed should be blogs, youtube videos and A.M. radio talk shows. Materials such as a government documents from "imperialist" nations or "capitalist" newspapers should only be permissible as evidence of the lies of the United States and its hegemonic allies Western Europe. I'm not saying this website will be the most reliable of sources, but at least then we'll have a forum for everyone with a nutty theory to channel their creative energy. David Straub (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you're talkin'...Modernist (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 24.

76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scouts d'Haïti

I have put information on Scouting's response in that article. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties and homeless people

What do homeless people have to do with casualties? 89.249.0.170 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

are you referring to the phrase Haitian authorities also estimated that 250,000 people sustained injuries, and as many as one million Haitians were left homeless. or something similar? If so, quite a lot. see Casualty (person). It doesn't mean just those killed or injured. Even if not physically injured, those made homeless (as well as those who still have homes) will be suffering from trauma, and will need basic support in terms of food, water, shelter, etc. in order to rebuild their lives.

Lynbarn (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the casualties to the right. I disagree with the trauma thing.89.249.0.170 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the infobox is using the word 'Casualties' in the same context as the later text, so my argument (and yours too, for that matter) still stands. I don't think this semantic difference, in the context of the greater disaster reported here, is really significant.

From a different sort of disaster, are the people in this piece not also casualties, as indicated in the title? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Linkable words

I'd suggest that [added later: one occurrence in each article of] words that may not be familiar to non-native speakers of English should always be linked in Wikipedia. I make this comment in particular because "guesstimate" has been delinked a couple of times. Masonry would be associated by many non-native speakers as to do with freemasonry, rather than prosaic bricks and mortar. Pol098 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm a fair point, we have enough trouble in that regard between American- and British- English! But do you mean every example of such words should be wikilinked, or just the first occurence? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One occurrence, I'd say the most significant rather than necessarily the first. I've edited my post above to say this. Pol098 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Petit Paradis tsunami

I'm not sure this should be included. First of all, this has only been reported by CNN and seems based on relatively limited evidence. Moreover, the use of the term "tsunami" might be sensationalistic because there is no established consensus on what qualifies as a tsunami. Note also that some of the images in CNN's video report make no sense. The tree which was supposedly on the beach before the tsunami is now 30 yards off the shore but is standing perfectly upright. This seems beyond miraculous especially since the witness claims that the tsunami wave was higher than the tree itself. At least one shot seems to show low vegetation close to the beach and I also find this rather hard to reconcile with the claim that the wave was able to destroy a house and uproot a tree. Finally, there is considerable uncertainty on the location. Pichpich (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, maybe reduce to a sentence mentioning unverified reports of a tsunami? If further details emerge from other sources, we can expand. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As yet, I have no hard opinion on whether or not it should be left as is, however right from the start I had my doubts. I wondered if perhaps the ground level had dropped a foot or two, rather than a tsunami. On the other hand, they did report that the water first drew back, before the wave struck, as is with a tsunami. As for the tree just standing there, it is odd but I've heard of even stranger things happening in a hurricaine...so perhaps leave it for now till we hear otherwise? Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The type of fault movement involved in this earthquake is highly unlikely to cause a tsunami directly. However, an offshore landslide triggered by the quake could give rise to a local tsunami. We'll have to wait for later investigations. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this will sound über-cynical but another good reason to be sceptical of the story is the fact that no other news outlet has picked up on the story since it broke three days ago. Given the morbid rules of disaster journalism, "tsunami" is too good a story to leave it all to CNN... Pichpich (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Time of the event

According to the article itself "The earthquake occurred at 16:53 local time (21:53 UTC) on Tuesday, 12 January 2010." I'm having trouble deciphering UTC and what this sentence on the main article actually means.. At what time did this event actually happen, assuming Eastern Time in the U.S.A.? 72.72.216.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

That's fairly clear I would have thought, although UTC could be linked. Eastern standard time is the same as Haitian local time (UTC -5), so 16:53 is what you're after. Apologies if I've misunderstood your question. Mikenorton (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, in general terms, UTC = Coordinated Universal Time = GMT = the time in London, England, which is 5 hours ahead of UTC-5 (Eastern Time). Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I ge it now, thanks. So it'd be 16:53, or 4:53 P.M. eastern time? 72.72.216.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Worldwide fundraising efforts

Is this something that is appropriate to this article?

I'm thinking of mention of the worldwide efforts and appeals that have been set up, such as the Disasters Emergency Committee in the UK, and the Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief telethon (mainly) in the USA.

There is also a human-interest story by the BBC, of a 7 year old boy in London, who wanted to raise £500 ($800) by cycling round his local park to help the children of Haiti, and has so far raised £95,000 ($153,300) for UNICEF via internet donations. Thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the little boy's Just Giving page (link on the BBC page) he's now up to £138,719.41 ($225,113)! So he has raised almost as much as Madonna gave - not bad, eh? 86.159.192.227 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors in intro on Haiti earthquake

In the introduction of this article, it states that Justice Minister Paul Denis died in the earthquake. This is not true. No cabinet ministers died. Minister Denis was in the Palais de Justice at the time of the earthquake but was able to climb out of the rubble a few hours later. He is alive and well.

The article also states that Haitian President Rene Preval was at the National Palace at the time of the earthquake. This is not true. He had left the palace and had just arrived at his official residence in Canape Vert when the earthquake struck, narrowly escaping death as his house collapsed before he had time to enter it.

Adam Barratt Political Counsellor Canadian Embassy in Port-au-Prince

Barrata (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected mentions of Paul Denis' death in various articles including his own, but there may be more. He was initially reported dead and nobody checked other sources later or we would have seen that he has given interviews on his lucky escape. The mix-up on the president's whereabouts was due to some dodgy copyediting (probably mine). Yomangani^talk 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fault map?

File:Haiti_Erdbeben_120110_en.png

File:Haiti_Erdbeben_120110.jpg is a German fault map... looks like an English version would be useful? 76.66.199.237 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Translated map done. Kmusser (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Split Damage to infrastructure section into subpage

I think it might be about time to split the Damage to infrastructure section into a subpage. I've made a number of edits in the last couple of days to that section and I expect there to be more relevant sources regarding damage to infrastructure in the coming weeks. The section is already fairly long and a subpage would allow us to trim down the Damage to infrastructure section on the main 2010 Haiti earthquake page. I'd appreciate your comment.David Straub (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I was just considering some pruning on that section. Yomangani^talk 02:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yomangani, give me half an hour and I'll do the split, then prun out all but the necessities.David Straub (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Finished. Created Damage to infrastructure in the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Can someone please migrate the history that page and update the 2010 Haiti earthquake template. Thanks.David Straub (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll

I'm not quite satisfied with the way the death toll is presented in the introduction. "As of 24 January 2010 the confirmed death toll was 150,000." I've checked several newspapers and all of them say that this number does only include victims from Port-au-Prince who were buried in a massgrave in the north of the city. So this number does not include victims from other cities or bodies which were buried by their relatives. Therefore, I think it would make sense to rewrite that sentence. (By the way, 150.000 is more than 10% of Port-au-Prince's population.) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.53.76 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Any number provided should be prefaced by "there is considerable uncertainty on the death toll". Latest number quoted is 150K. Two days after the quake it was 200K, then it dropped to 50-70K etc. It's important to realize that most of these reports are based on guesstimates provided because the media keeps asking. No government official, Red Cross rep or journalist was actually there counting the bodies in the mass graves since obviously there were (and still are) much more pressing matters. Actually the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that there will never be any certainty about the death toll. Pichpich (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the death toll figures are being horribly exaggerated. If you read the article with the source for this number, it comes from one woman in the Haitian government who gave *no explanation whatsoever* for this figure, which jumped around like crazy during the same day. If you look at earthquakes of *higher* magnitude and *denser* populations with *larger structures*, such as the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, the death toll was 3,000 (the local government counted 376). And that was a century ago when medicine and machines weren't as advanced for recovery operations. I just can't see the Haitian figure being anywhere close to 150,000.JettaMann (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence from reliable sources that the death toll is being exaggerated, post it up here. Personal speculation is not relevant. All sources point to a death toll in excess of that currently confirmed by the Haitian government of 170,000. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

According to CNN, the latest official death toll as of 26 January 2010 is 112,250. Article here Gyurika (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That same article also quotes a 150K figure from Haitian authorities and a 200K figure from the EU. This is exactly why it's pointless to keep a precise number in the introduction. Nobody really knows and the choice we make for the Wikipedia article can only be arbitrary and misleading. Pichpich (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why we quote a range from reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the scarcity of information, I thought everyone who worked on this article did a great job representing the death toll figures. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors are doing a fine job, but the death toll is still very exaggerated (see my post above). JettaMann (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At what point should one remove an "anticipated" death toll from January 15th from the the first paragraph of the article? Mpkomara (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for a more up-to-date reliable source. Estimates seem to range from 200,000-300,000 now, but I'm having trouble finding a figure that is recently attributable to a particular offical, rather than reports that "sources say that..." --Pontificalibus (talk)

Let's be very careful about saying anything like it is the "confirmed" or "final" death toll. We must make clear that comes from one woman in the Haitian government who gave *no explanation whatsoever* for this figure, which jumped around like crazy during the same day. It is troubling that earthquakes of *higher* magnitude and dense populations with *larger structures*, such as the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, had a death toll of only 3,000 (or less - the local government only counted 376). And that was a century ago when medicine and machines weren't as advanced for recovery operations. JettaMann (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC

There is very little correlation between earthquake magnitude and death toll. There are a lot of factors such as density of population, time of day, construction of the buildings, depth of quake etc... --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

There is a suggestion at Category talk:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake that this category should be listified.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"invasion" by scientologist missionaries, etc

According to this [2] french-language Swiss newspaper, Scientologists and fundamentalist Christian missionaries are invading Haiti. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:2010 Haiti earthquake relief

There is a discussion underway at Category talk:2010 Haiti earthquake relief about the future of that category and whether it needs subcategorization.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Intensity

USGS has changed the earthquake intensity in Port-au-Prince from MM VII to MM IX. So I changed the corresponding contents accordingly. Qrfqr (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I've just fiddled with the infobox.

• Removed National Palace image as it was more decorative than informative
• Added Léogâne to the map. This is one of the worst hit cities and the only reason I can see for leaving it off the map is that it's hard to add it without having overlapping labels and dots. Location map nerds can see that I cheated a bit to make it work.
• Removed the "Tsunami: Yes". See earlier discussion on the subject. Even if the report is eventually confirmed by other sources, it's still somewhat anecdotal and adding it to the infobox gives it an importance which is slightly misleading.

Comments and suggestions about these changes are of course welcome. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have a go at fix the labelling and dots using the original map (I guess that makes me a self-confessed nerd), as that gives flexibility to add other locations, but I'll do it in a sandbox and let you have a look before adding it, assuming it looks OK to me. Mikenorton (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As an incompetent nerd, I'd like to wish you all the best! Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm confused right now, the version of the map that you produced looked a bit odd on my browser at work, hence my comment, but now it looks absolutely fine and I can only imagine that Yomangan also had problems in another browser and therefore produced the 'static map'. I'll just leave things as they are, as I currently don't see a problem to fix. Mikenorton (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the removal of the palace image. The infobox is apparently, by design, intended to have an image at it's top. Intended so strongly that, in the absence of such an image, the infobox automatically places the article into a category specifically seeking an image. So if the standard for this infobox is to have an image, then IMHO we should have one. I do not have a problem with a different image than the palace being used, but I have a problem with the total removal of images altogether, since the article is now being placed in Category:Earthquake articles needing a picture because of the absence of the image. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For one I don't know why this bot-populated category is needed. Moreover the typical image used in earthquake templates is, as in the present case, a map. Pichpich (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No bots involved. The template populates it, not a bot. And the template wants it in addition to a map, which is a separate field on the template. As for the why, you'll need to ask at the template's talk page. But until/unless it is changed, I think we need an image. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a request for the template to be changed. There was a long discussion about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes, but no changes got made. Mikenorton (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the template so that it no longer places the article into a category when an image is not present. However I do think an image would be appropriate in this article, but can't think of a better one that exmplifies the severity of the earthquake than the photo of the collapsed presidential palace that was removed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dan Brown/Wikimedia Foundation

Hi. Those involved in the Wikimedia foundation may be interested in this proposal for donations to the Haiti relief efforts. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Delaying elections

According to [3] - Preval is delaying elections that were scheduled on 28 Feb. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

28th February? I'm surprised this was announced sooner Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Shake map

• The shake map is also deceiving it shows PORT-AU-PRINCE on the outskirts. The shake map from USGS, and the damage pictures, indicate that PORT-AU-PRINCE was one of the hardest hit areas. File:Http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/download/intensity.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.229.1 (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• The map is at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/download/intensity.jpg . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with the shake map. Perhaps your criticism is on the map included in the infobox but that map just represents the epicentre. Port-au-Prince had the most serious damage because it's by far the densest urban area but even on the Mercalli scale, Léogâne, Gressier, Carrefour were hit harder than Port-au-Prince. The geological info carried by the map is correct and there's no reason to change it in favour of a map carrying more subjective info about the level of damage. Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

15 days/getting close

Forgot to mention this a few days ago but might as well now. I'm very close to being wrong [4] Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake/Archive 1#16 January. And it's been more then 17 days now, so if any more survivors are found, I will be. Here's hoping! Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know that Mexico tried to give Haiti food and money but they only took the money because they didn′t want to get the swine flu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.211.36 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Trolling? H1N1 already reached Haiti back in July[5]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem in the fault map?

I've temporarily removed the image File:Haiti Erdbeben 120110 en.png from the article. It's of course a very interesting map and some equivalent deserves to be in the article. However the map puts the epicentre at a location inconsistent with the USGS data. I've left a note to the map's creator to try and understand the discrepancy but as a precaution, I think it's best to remove the map for now. Feel free to revert if you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill: the location is not way off, something like 10km east. Pichpich (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a translation of a German map File:Haiti Erdbeben 120110.jpg, so you might consider contacting the original version's author. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is not shown on the German Wikipedia article on the quake. Might be best to forget about it for now. Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps answer requests for specific maps? Pichpich (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Some items from boots on the ground

1) Heard that stuff was piled up at the airport - that the UN wouldn't allow its distribution or didn't know how to distribute it. The UN seems to be the bad guys since they have been there 5 years and have apparently done nothing. They refuse to cooperate with the military who is used to "doing" things and not just shuffling papers.

1a) The UN "rations" supplies to volunteer doctors working at the only two hospitals in Port au Prince. They have tons of it sitting there now. What else can it be used for?

2) Heard that support was mostly aimed at Port au Prince; that the countryside was being ignored. I suppose if the city collapses so will the government.

3) No one is coordinating anything. Relief agencies flying in have no idea what to bring with them. One group brought medical supplies and realized after landing that they should have brought food.

4) Royal Caribbean is apparently dropping off food and supplies in Labadee which was not particularly affected by the earthquake. Material offloaded there is unlikely to make it by land to the south coast where it is needed.

Sounds like Katrina, except that missteps there were corrected in a few days (talked about for months). Here it has gone on for weeks and no one seems to have reported it yet, not seeming to realize that it is a first world effort that is not going well and attributing it, I suppose to working in Haiti, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

So why mention it? If I have heard this, so has some journalist, and it should turn up as an article that might be used. So far, journalism has focused on the charity attempts at help. It will be interesting to see how long the first world can hold their focus on this problem. Short attention span. Student7 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy article and the navtemplate

See Template talk:2010 Haiti earthquake and the history Template:2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a disagreement between whether to have the article on the navtemplate or not.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UNESCO protecting heritage

According to [6], UNESCO has just started (1Feb) to initiate a program to protect the cultural heritage of Haiti. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually UNESCO had someone on this already at least a week ago: [7] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

slight political unrest

I ran across this article about the fact that many Haitians are unhappy with the government and would like the US to lead the recovery effort, if not the take over the country entirely. Where should this go? Spartan S58 (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question with no good answer currently. One option is to expand on the issue of governance in "Conditions in the aftermath" but that section is focused on the day-to-day situation. Articles like Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake or Humanitarian response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake only function as lists so they're no good either and Operation Unified Response is too US-specific to work. I'd suggest creating a new section in the article to discuss the complexities of the political situation. This could include material of the article you cite but it can also discuss at length casualties among public officials and the resulting leadership void (see for instance the NYT piece [8]), the postponed Haitian elections and the role, both actual and perceived, of the US and its military (which also allows us to discuss the criticism of the US involvement which is currently out of place in the ridiculous 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories). Pichpich (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is true of any third world country exposed to a first world one. While the UN is not bribable, most employees are from a third world country and have never seen efficient uncorrupt government. The problem being that the Haitian government cannot afford to pay officials a decent wage and it is considered okay to "do what you have to do" to live including accepting bribes, selling goods, etc. Having said that, I doubt that the US/French military is allowing distribution of food through the government itself for that reason, without keeping the goods in sight. I suspect that it's the UN, the Haitians may be mistakening for their own government. Not bribable, just incompetent. Student7 (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Association Nationale des Guides d'Haïti

I've now created a section here for the girls' response. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuban assistance

The article currently makes no reference at all to Cuban assistance to Haiti. The only references (not relating to assistance) are in the geography section and further down in relation to "Plan Pedro".

Perhaps this is because many Cuban doctors were already represent before the earthquake struck? If this is correct (as suggested in this [article http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2010/01/19/cuban-doctors-in-haiti-are-they-there-can-american-media-see-them]) then perhaps this article is over-emphasising external response to the earthquake and under emphasising the responses of Haitians themselves and others already within the country. Perhaps this needs balancing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.205 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, More here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.205 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a line: Cuba was the first to respond with medical personnel, sending 40 physicians on January 13? BTW, here is a site with a lot of coverage of the quake:

http://www.trinicenter.com/articles/2010/170110c.html Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources given above do not appear to support "the first to respond with medical personnel" and our article seems to imply that the Dominican Republic medics were first (also the U.S. Coast Guard was already running helicopter evacuations of injured embassy staff on January 13 so any statement would have to be carefully worded.) Many nations with sizable contributions are not mentioned in this article but only in the subarticles. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disproportionate

The disproportionate level of infrastructure damage and deaths resulting from this earthquake, as compared to other earthquakes of similar magnitude, needs to be noted specifically in this article. I'm sure that articles are out there discussing shortcoming/complete absence of building codes and urban planning in Haiti. - Gwopy 10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Impressive article IMO

I have contributed little, if anything, to this article. I just wanted to mention that, considering the timeline and pressure under which it was developed, it seems very impressive to me. Now that the heat is (somewhat) off, some of you might want to consider it for GA/FA. Lots of good stuff to build on IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post the same, about such a sad event, yet, an article that stands out in the middle of the others. T-oliveira (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Relief workers deaths

Apparently two relief workers just died in a helicopter crash in the dominican Republic. Not sure how to fit it into the article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The timeline article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Laura Silsby , New Life Children’s Refuge , kidnapping & conspiracy & child-trafficking

Should Laura Silsby and/or New Life Children’s Refuge get an article? Or is it too WP:1E ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, I think it's definitely a case of WP:NOTNEWS. There's no harm in waiting until more reliable information emerges and we can really decide how significant the whole thing is. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Predictions

A well worded, footnoted paragraph reads: "A 2006 earthquake hazard study by C. DeMets and M. Wiggins-Grandison noted that the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault zone could be at the end of its seismic cycle and predicted a worst-case scenario of a magnitude 7.2 earthquake, similar in size to the 1692 Jamaica earthquake.[33] Paul Mann and a group including the 2006 study team presented a hazard assessment of the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault system to the 18th Caribbean Geologic Conference in March 2008, noting the large strain (overall equivalent to a 7.2 Mw earthquake); the team recommended "high priority" historical geologic rupture studies, as the fault was fully locked and had recorded few earthquakes in the preceding 40 years.[34] An article published in Haiti's Le Matin newspaper in September 2008 cited comments by geologist Patrick Charles to the effect that there was a high risk of major seismic activity in Port-au-Prince.[35]"

Two things that bother me about this:

1. It features many names of people who are WP:NN. It seems to promote their names. They could have remained in the footnotes.

2. For any natural disaster, there are always those who predicted it, ranging from Jeanne Dixon type seers to scientists. There is noplace in the US, for example, even Florida, that isn't subject to earthquakes. What does that mean? We should start preparing for them? We think we are being very rational and scientific quoting geologists, but they don't differ much from seers in this case IMO. Earthquake prognosticators make weathermen look good! Predict one for everyplace and you are bound to be right someday!

Student7 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to list the authors of the studies, since it facilitates finding the studies themselves, and avoids confusion with other people's theories. As for the newspaper article... that might be excessive. but each family was able to find shelter. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NN applies to articles about people not to mentioning people's names in articles. I don't see anything inconsistent with policy by mentioning their names. So you're saying they were just lucky and their methods are comparable to those of a seer..that's harsh..it's also wrong. Geocientists aren't like seers at all as you'll see if you read the article in GJI. To be fair both the GJI article and the UT Austin piece focused on the Plantain Garden fault end of the EPGFZ in Jamaica looking like it might have reached the end of it's cycle if we're going to be fussy. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not a precise prediction, it only said that sufficent strain had probably accumulated to cause a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the fault system, referring specifically to the Jamaican end. I've been in two minds about whether this should be in the article or not. Mikenorton (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasty earthquakes have been predicted for nearly everyplace in the US, most notably for SF and California, but also for Midwest and Southern US and NYC (sorry no Immediate quote comes to mind). What I am saying is that predictors will look brilliant on Monday morning when their predictions turn out to be true. But some of the predictors may not survive to read plaudits. All I am saying is there is noplace today that someone hasn't said there will be an earthquake. It seems meaningless to suggest these guys were brilliant in predicting it when no place on earth is immune. "I predict a major hurricane in Florida this year (or next)." Please remember that when you edit the future "Hurrican Zelda 2011" !  :) I just don't think that past predictions of future earthquakes (or hurricanes) are notable. Not without some precise timeline which is beyond science at this time. We are talking alchemy/seers here when we need an accurate date. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone would suggest that science is not able to predict earthquakes. Here, for example, is the prediction for the New Madrid fault line located in central US:

The zone remains active today. In recent decades minor earthquakes have continued.[5] New forecasts estimate a 7 to 10 percent chance, in the next 50 years, of a repeat of a major earthquake like those that occurred in 1811-1812, which likely had magnitudes of between 7.5 and 8.0. There is a 25 to 40 percent chance, in a 50-year time span, of a magnitude 6.0 or greater earthquake.

Scientists know where the major fault lines are located and can make a pretty good guess as to how much stress is building up. Also, geologists are remarkably able to piece together physical evidence to estimate the frequency and strength of past quakes in a particular area.Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have hit on the problem here and it suggests a reasonable solution. The problem is that prognostication is associated with the earthquake itself. Prognostication for earthquakes are not precise enough to do that. For example, 20 minutes or so before tornados destroyed Greensburg, Kansas, there was a serious tornado warning which Kansans take seriously. They took shelter, minimizing the loss of life. This was, and should be, in the article.

Earthquake and (general) hurricane predictions are not to that level of accuracy yet. For example, I can't say that Hurricane Jane will strike Lakeland, category 3, October 7, 2011. Earthquakes aren't even that close.

Nor do we associate, in articles, general, "seasonal" forecasts for hurricanes. No one says in Hurricane Andrew that so-n-so with the Hurricane Advisory Center predicted that "the season would be a bad one." The reason is that it wasn't specific enough.

We should place earthquake prognostications with the fault article. So New Madrid predictions would be with the New Madrid fault and not the "Great Mobile Earthquake of 2011." Student7 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the paragraph as it stands if we replace 'predicted a worst-case scenario' with 'concluded that a worse-case forecast would involve' in the text. This uses the researchers own words, they were very clear about the uncertainties inherent in doing this kind of forecasting. This paper has nothing to do with earthquake prediction but everything to do with seismic hazard assessment. This link is to a webpage in which Paul Mann specifically states that they were forecasting earthquake likelihood and our work was not an earthquake “prediction”. I'll make the change. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And that is why it should be with the fault article and not with the occurence article. Here it seems WP:PR for nn geologists. This might not seem out of place in the article about the fault, though precedence would doubtless be given to notable geologists. Mann's statement (which I have not read) seems to confirm this placement of the material.

For the same reason, the annual prediction for the hurricane season for Florida would not be in the article Hurricane Andrew (hopefully!). It's not that it's inaccurate or non-scientific, it's simply off WP:TOPIC for an actual occurence. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is relevant to this article to mention that there were earthquake seismologists attempting to raise awareness of earthquake hazard in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic associated with this fault zone nearly two years before the earthquake. I have no problem with anyone re-writing this section to remove the names of the seismologists involved, but I think that it deserves its place. Mikenorton (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not about earthquake prediction, it's not 'prognostication' (a strange way to describe things like a paper published in a highly respected journal) and it isn't even remotely similar to weather forcasting. It's pertinent and notable information about the geological setting preceeding the earthquake. We're lucky to even have this material. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not prognostication? Granted that it isn't that accurate, which is why suggesting that "raising awareness" (like the annual Hurricane Prediction, which is equally vague and wrong) is insufficient for inclusion in the actual occurence of the event. Like predicting that there will be a shuttle liftoff someday. Yep, there will be. Eventually.

As far as "lucky" goes, we are so damn lucky that we have at least 50 predictions for earthquakes for every fault in the world, which has to total in the thousands! How else can a poor WP:NN geologist/seismologist get attention? More like Nostradamus predicting "bad things." Yes, "bad things will happen." I agree. That is the nature of faults all right. Is there any fault in the world that acts "nice'? Come on! Student7 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about earthquake prediction. It's about describing the geological setting immediately (in geological time) preceeding the earthquake. We are lucky in the sense that some people happened to look at the data when they did and wrote some reports. And I'm going to say it again, this is not about predicting when an event will happen, it's about the geology. If the earthquake had occurred in 10 years time rather than now, these reports would still be highly pertinent and we would still be lucky to have them. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New tectonic plate map

I just created this map to illustrate the articles on the Septentrional-Orient fault zone, the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault zone and one on the Gonâve microplate that I'm currently constructing. It occurs to me that it could probably replace the general Tectonic Plates Caribbean file that is used in this article now, as (hopefully) it shows the regional context of the earthquake more clearly. Mikenorton (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Yes, it's much better. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've switched them. Mikenorton (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The tectonic map has the Oriente fault zone and Walton fault zone... should these redirect to the EPGZ and SOFZ articles, or should they be separate topics? (The spreading centre has an article at Cayman Trough.) ... there's also no Gonâve microplate article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As it says above, I'm currently producing an article on the Gonâve Microplate in one of my sandboxes, it should be up later today. The Walton fault is separate from the EPGFZ and deserves its own article, whereas the Oriente fault is part of the SOFZ (I've suggested renaming that article to the Oriente spelling on the relevant talk page). Mikenorton (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<-I'm wondering whether we should mention that part of the EPGFZ is visible in the 2010 Haiti Quake Aftershock Damage Satellite Image from the terrain morphology ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a little OR-ish, but it seems very likely that the linear valleys follow the fault trace, so I don't see why not. Mikenorton (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this map confirms the fault running through those valleys, so yes. Mikenorton (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Platetectonics-haitiquake.jpg

There's also File:Platetectonics-haitiquake.jpg 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Homeless

The infobox currently gives 1.2 million homeless. I just reverted an edit that increased that number to 2 million, which didn't look very reliable. The BBC here [9] give a range between 500,000 to 700,000, the Daily Telegraph refers to 'half a million' here [10]. Do we have anything more definitive? Mikenorton (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

2 Million homeless. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/21/haiti-homeless-reach-2-million , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake

That's a three week old estimate. I was hoping for something more up-to-date, preferably from a relief agency or something that might have actually counted. Mikenorton (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiti Earthquake Casualty

As of Haiti goverenment, 270,000 bodies buried. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35334751/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a pretty confusing report, mentioning lots of different numbers. It's titled "Haiti gives conflicting counts for quake deaths ". We have to wait and hope that something more definitive turns up. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti nominated for deletion

I have nominated Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti for deletion. You can view the Afd here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Countries Affected - Only Haiti?

Dominican Republic immediately comes to mind. Being the immediate adjacent Hispaniola country obviously it could not possibly have escaped at least some damage. I have been wondering from Day One why there had been virtually NO press coverage on this country.

What about Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Cuba and The Bahamas? Pchk (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shaking was reported in Jamaica and Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in various newspapers, and in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic's capital). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seismic monitoring network

So... Canada has established a seismic monitoring network in Hait. See [11]

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

4.7 Aftershock on 22 Feb

Per [12] (in French) - an aftershock 10 km underground, 35 km out to sea to the west of Port-au-Prince occurred at 4:36am local time (09h36 GMT) on 22 February 2010.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Change in article name

I don't understand why 'January' has been added to the article name. Obviously a move to 'February 2010 Haiti earthquake' was wrong but why not just change it back to how it was? Mikenorton (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Spurious page moves

Someone moved January 2010 Haiti earthquake, to February 2010 Haiti earthquake citing "Anticipating another earthquake in March 2010". This is not a suitable reason for a name change and the new name runs contrary to convention on all other earthquake articles. Any future moves should be discussed here first.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I locked moves down to admins only yesterday. It is set to expire in mid-March, at the same time that the semi-protection was already set to expire. There are plenty of admins watching this, any are welcome to execute a move that gets consensus on this talk page without prior consultation with me. But I see no reason for the page to be renamed without such a discussion first. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

help haiti

yours truly, leader of girl scout troop 7693 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.227.173 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnitude on the Richter scale?

Why is there no Richter scale magnitude listed for this earthquake, unlike most other earthquakes (including the extremely recent one in Chile)? --Blasterman 95 (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The magnitiude is mentioned in the first sentence of the article and also in the infobox on the top right of the page.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The magnitude used in the article (and in the source that it's taken from) is the moment magnitude scale. The Richter scale is no longer routinely used by seismologists as it tends to 'saturate' for higher magnitude events (>6.9). Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Relation with Nicaragua's 1972 Earthquake

Nicaragua in 1972 experienced a similar earthquake to that which occurred in Haiti that happened roughly a month ago. I added the link at the bottom of the page and an editor removed it, claiming that "Nicaragua has no similarities with Haiti." Frankly, the statement does sound rather ignorant considering that both capitals:

A. Had massive death tolls. B. The capitals were completely destroyed. C. The cities both (Haiti will) need (Managua already has) complete new infrastructure development.

Simply because the earthquake occurred 38 years ago does not necessarily mean it is outdated or has no immediate relevance. Thoughts? Mbhskid520 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

turn off auto archiving?

I think we can turn off auto-archiving of the talk page now, activity is rather low, more than a month after the event. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't turn it off, but tune it down. Done.--Oneiros (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And there's no reason to disable archive indexing. I've reset the archiving to 30 days/ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's still high, considering that on most articles, discussions occur over months of time, and most articles don't auto-archive at all, this just adds more bot tasks for not much reason. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the haiti stress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.20.242 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

tsunami

According to the National Geographic [13] there were many tsunami strikes. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also The Times of London [14] and BBC News [15] 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I read them to say that there were several local tsunamis, probably caused by underwater landslides triggered by the earthquake. I'll add something to the appropriate section. Mikenorton (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

GDP

According to President Preval, 35-50% of the GDP was destroyed by the quake. [16]

70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ARTISTIC RESPONSES TO THE HAITI EARTHQUAKE

Playwright Larry Myers wrote "Point of Impact" in New York City. After being workshopped at St John's University's Queens campus it previewed at Saval Theater at 101 Murray Street in Manhattan. It then opened at Where Eagles Dare Theater on West 36th Street Uptown. Dr Myers interviewed his own Haitian students at the uviversity as well as actual survivors (in French) at Le Soeil Restaurant on West 57 th Street & Tenth Avenue in Uptown New York City.Myers has now written a companion piece "Glas on the Moon" which will premiere at Leslie/Lohman Gallery Theater on Wooster Street in Manhattan.Professional actors Janice Bishop, Bina Sharif, Lissa Moira, Ronnie Narpel, George Trahanis, Karen Giordano, Carlton King. Lillian Gonzalez & Ilva Weeks starred in "Point." Qqqzzzxxx (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Death toll estimates inaccurate?

Death toll estimates provided by the Haitian government may well be inaccurate, according to the findings of the Dutch Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW). These findings, based on interviews with local authorities rather than the national government, suggest the actual death toll is most likely below 100,000:

Melissen, Hans Jaap (23 February 2010). "Haiti quake death toll well under 100,000". Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Retrieved 2010-02-28. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The findings of RNW seem convincing enough to warrant inclusion of a few words of caution in this article with regard to casualty figures provided by the spokespersons of the national government. Arjuno (talk 06:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed the numbers mentioned in the RNW article in the following table for a better understanding of the disparities with government figures.

Death toll of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, according to RNW findings:

	Buried	Unrecovered bodies	Total		Government estimates
Léogâne (MM IX)	3,364	1,636	5,000		20,000-30,000
Petit-Goâve, Grand-Goâve and Gressier (MM IX):	1,347	20	1,367		?
Jacmel (MM VIII) See also: this section	?	?	400		4,000
Port-au-Prince (MM VIII):
main cemetry	18,000		18,000		?
other cemetries	7,000		7,000		?
mass graves in Titanyen	13,000-20,000		13,000-20,000		?
other (mass) graves	10,000		10,000		?
Total buried victims	~ 62,000				?
Bodies still under the rubble		30,000	30,000		?
Total death toll estimate			~ 91,767		~ 230,000

I would suggest changing the text in the infobox from "Casualties: 230,000 confirmed deaths" to "Casualties: 92,000 - 230,000 deaths".
Also, the current lead text mentions: the Haitian Government reports that between 217,000 and 230,000 people had been identified as dead, an estimated 300,000 injured, and an estimated 1,000,000 homeless. The death toll is expected to rise. Since the references do not mention there was an actual body count that warrants using the word "identified", I think the wording should be more cautious, and propose to rephrase as follows: "the Haitian Government reports that between 217,000 and 230,000 people are to be assumed dead, an estimated 300,000 injured, and an estimated 1,000,000 homeless. The government expects the death toll to rise"
Additionally, in the "Casualties" section, I propose to include a line mentioning the RNW death toll estimate and briefly referring to the local sources used. If needed, more detailed info could go in the "Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake" main article. Comments are welcome - Arjuno (talk 05:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Applied proposed changes. The casualty section may need some additional explanatory lines. Arjuno (talk 04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A careful reading of the article indicates that 92,000 is the upper limit of the estimated deaths (what they call a 'generous' estimate), with 52,000 being the lower limit. The UN describe the official numbers as a "guess", and I couldn't find any other source that tried to make a more accurate assessment. I suggest to replace the specific figure given with a range (52-92,000), and also to reflect this in the top of the article by adding something to the effect that the official estimates are unreliable. MeanOnSunday (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the deal with people?

why peole say that the red cross stall form Hatti?

Most people are unawre of the things that the red cross do not only fo Hatti but for many other Countries in the world, Most of this things that the red cross does not even the British or Amercian goverment would do but they decided to find someone else as a scapgoat to blame and they find thered cross and blame them $175 millon is not small money but as for the real answer look at things like have they red cross done this before and if the answer is no then people better start looking at some else to blame in fact blame yourself for this because only you know where the money is.

Bwalya Kabwe..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.198.62 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S Secret Technology Responsible?

I Heard On Youtube, On The CitizenTube Channel, That Someone Stated That The Americans Are Responsible For The Haiti Earthquake, Through Some Device That Controls The Electomagnetic Waves That Circle The Earth. He Wasn't Sure, This Was During President Barrack Obama's Speech In 2010. Wait, It was actually A Question. What is the name of the device, and Is He Right? --The Demon Of The Wiki Sea, Razgriz 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This refers to the entirely specious suggestion that the HAARP facility 'caused' the earthquake. It doesn't 'control' anything and could not be used in the way described. This had been discussed (at length) here before - try this talk page's archives (it's probably in the first). Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Haiti Earthquake??

In the first paragraph why does it say the 2009 Haiti Eartquake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondirescue (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This has now been corrected. Thanks - Arjuno (talk 10:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hit for Haiti

Hit for Haiti points to the 2010 Australian Open, but there's a second Hit for Haiti now... that raised about 1million$ ... so... should this become an article with a hatnote, or a dab page with a second article at some other name? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sp

• "localised"->localized, in infobox.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fayette

So... the hamlet of Fayette is the closest settlement to the epicenter, according to the Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/haitis-fayette-villagers_b_498122.html

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. Please suggest how it may be added to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, it might replace "Leogane" in the first paragraph... or in some way, the two would appear together. Or it replaces Leogane, and Leogane is mentioned as being the nearest large city to the epicentre... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

tsunami

according to [17] there was a tsunami at Grand Goave that washed 7 people out to sea.

The tsunami section needs to be updated concerning this and the tsunami section above. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Casualties in Haiti earthquake

It is important, once the page is unlocked, to update the news reports regarding the controversial (and unreleased) USAID report finding the death toll to be much lower than intially reported.

An AP article (see source below), reports the problems with the statistical analysis:

"Flaws have been found in a controversial U.S. report estimating the death toll from Haiti's earthquake last year was far lower than previously thought, a U.S. official said Friday.

It was the strongest statement yet by U.S. government officials since a leaked draft report commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development raised questions over just how many people died and were displaced in the January 2010 quake, an unparalleled natural disaster that unleashed an outpouring of foreign aid.

Mark Feierstein of the U.S. Agency for International Development said the report is problematic because the authors used a statistical sampling that was not representative. The study didn't include data from heavily damaged areas in Haiti's countryside or from the number of houses that collapsed and killed people, he said.

"Those are all serious flaws," Feierstein, USAID's assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The report's lead author, Timothy T. Schwartz, couldn't be reached for comment Friday."

Source: US: Flaws in death toll report on Haiti quake By TRENTON DANIEL, Associated Press – 3 days ago (Accessed at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJ87y5fGfTUPd-xqXfGFGeTukP8Q?docId=643e7b8b6d574898ac3e472c0cf9f3b8 on 6/7/11)

The article continues to challenge the figures contained in the report.

Laura.ijdh (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On february 9 Haiti goverenment confermed that 230,000 people died in Haiti earthquake. In this article, someone write 92,000 to 230,000.Whereas 92,000 is old figures.230,000 is latest figures. I think 92,000 should remove because latest and confermed figures is 230,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.80.7 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Both referenced figures are about from the same date. They reflect disparities in death toll estimates coming from the Haitian government and those coming from research carried out by journalists on the ground. Please see section of the discussion page. Both referenced figures should be kept in order to keep the article balanced. - Arjuno (talk 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

HAITI'S DEATH TOLL

What we know we don't know: Estimates of the victims claimed by Haiti's devastating Jan. 12 earthquake range from President René Préval's 300,000 to the "well under 100,000" put forth by a skeptical Dutch news agency. The big round numbers should be a hint that no one really has any idea.

Why we don't know it: Death-toll numbers frequently swing wildly for a few weeks after natural disasters. But in Haiti, where an unstable government had little grasp of the country's population under the best of circumstances, the challenge was far greater. The lack of resources also meant that most attention was paid to the living, while dead bodies were often disposed of haphazardly with little documentation. Some citizens have even accused the government of deliberately inflating casualty numbers to attract more foreign aid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_list_the_known_unknowns?page=0,3

--DAI (Δ) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recovery six monts later...

Well, six months into "recovery" and things could hardly look more bleak. We have numerous news reports that clearly state that things hardly seem different than the situation immediately following the quake, except that now hurricane season approaches and already the rains have come to make life even more miserable. The vultures circle looking for a way to make an easy buck. Even if anyone would attempt to provide better "housing", old land claims make finding a suitable location next to impossible without a strong voice to speak for the disadvantaged. Only 2% of the aid promised has been delivered. Here is a good overview from Doctors Without Borders: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/article.cfm?id=4581&cat=special-report Here is a Stephen Lendman article with many links: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2010/071410Lendman.shtml Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to park this info here till I (or anyone) has time to put it in the article. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/haitis-emergency-response-must-include-protection-sexual-violence-2010-03-25

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/17/thousands_of_haitians_face_risk_of Just so heartbreaking... Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I found additional information on the status of the recovery in Haiti. I was initially going to add to the 'six month' section, however, since this is more current info, I added a new section for a 'nine month' section. Perhaps the structure of this needs to be looked at. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I watched the CNN coverage after the earthquake and it was obvious that the UN and the most of the international aid agencies completely failed to make any impact at all in the first few weeks. It was notable that fresh flowers were placed in the airconditioned bar provided for aid workers and others at the airport while medical aid, water, food and sanitation for the victims of the earthquake was completely absent. The account of initial response to the earthquake in this wiki is well wide of the mark. History has been rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.182.177 (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to ask: Where were YOU when the shit was hitting the fan? Read this comment page too, and where were you when I ran into problems even getting 6 and a year later reviews? Crawl back into the woodwork or make the effort needed to help with our encyclopedia rather than pop up from time to time to bitch. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please. WP:NPA. Student7 (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct and I apologize. There is no excuse for my comments and I'm sorry I made them. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you measure "recovery" for what is essentially a volunteer effort. Some were actual volunteers. Some were paid national efforts, but the country was doing the volunteering of their group. Some had limited charters. One set up a "trauma unit" for example. I was not pleased at some of the stories I heard, but don't really know how to measure "efficiency" in this case. The economic level of Haiti is not high to begin with. While some people wrung their hands at mass cities, some of these people were actually living better than they were!

And did any of the "charters" include putting the (non-historic) buildings back together? How do you measure the efficiency of someone trying to extricate the living (and dead) from collapsed buildings?

We may be stuck (as often is the case) with some scholarly pronouncement that may not yet have been made. Student7 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

New Fault Blamed for Earthquake

I've just come across this article indicating that a new previously unknown faultline was responsible for the 2010 Haitian Earthquake.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/haiti-quake-new-fault-100810.html

Danwild6 (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I love this sort of stuff! Thanks for the info. However, when I went to edit it into the article I found that it was no simple thing at all! I hope someone gets around to it...if not I will...eventually... Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To repeat my comment at Talk:Enriquillo – Plantain Garden fault zone, I reverted a recent edit to that article,, which added an AP report on a conference talk that suggested that another fault was responsible for the earthquake rather than the Enriquillo fault. We know that the earthquake was a result of left lateral slip along a fault that at least runs parallel to the Enriquillo fault, so it's likely to form part of the fault zone, if not the specific fault plane. When and if the new study is published, that would be the time to review its inclusion, I reckon. Mikenorton (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The new info re the fault is out now in Nature magazine, so hopefully now we can get it in the article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018151737.htm I remember that Léogâne was the epicenter. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to come up with an appropriate wording, note that this paper regards the earthquake as being due to rupture on the Enriquillo fault, although the purpose in this case was to model any increase in seismic hazard on surrounding faults. My difficulty is that I don't have access to the full Nature paper, and the story is apparently a complex one. Ah, but I just found this [18], which is a little clearer. The new fault is still regarded as part of the overall EPG fault zone, but is actually a blind thrust fault. Mikenorton (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting on with this Mike. As more info comes out I'd like to see more such as this: "Our observations of offset landforms confirm a long history of repeated surface rupture on the EPGFZ. Because the main EPGFZ did not rupture in 2010, considerable strain remains to be released in an earthquake that poses a major hazard to densely populated parts of Haiti, including PAP." And of course, to add the newly discovered Léogâne fault to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cholera

Should the recent cholera outbreak have its own subpage like other recent cholera outbreaks have (e.g., 2008–2009 Zimbabwean cholera outbreak)? Thoughts? Remember (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now 4 sentence long, a begining. --Kslotte (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The cholera section doesnt mention any connection with the earthquake or it being worsened (or even happening at all) becasue of the earthquakes legacy. Some might argue they are in displacement camps, but unless a RS makes those assertions its dubious to say (not to mention WP:Synthesis) that the 2 are related. I'e added a tag to the section pending some more assertions that the 2 are in fact related.Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been moved to Haitian cholera outbreak

Sources

1. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/10/22/130749034/cholera-blamed-for-at-least-138-deaths-in-haiti-so-far
2. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/21/haiti.cholera/?hpt=T2
3. http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_10_08/en/index.html for comparsion
4. Portal:Current_events/2010_October_22
5. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Cholera_Outbreak_in_Haiti
6. use Google search "Cholera Outbreak Haiti"

--Kslotte (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the cholera outbreak to the article now that it seems that it was brouht to Haiti from UN workers and the fact that what with one tenth of the people still in tents, it is a perfect storm for a killer epidemic. (What a heartbreaking situation for those people - from as worse as it could get, to even worse...) Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway. It is not obviously connected to the earthquake. There are a lot of problems in this country. Connecting them all in all articles is going to get quite confusing to Wikipedia editors. Which is why we have the policy of WP:TOPIC. Confine material to one topic to one article. Otherwise we are stuck maintaining the information in two, three or more articles. I suppose you could have another article, "The events of 2010 in Haiti" which would list earthquake flood famine fire hurricane, etc. etc. But not in this article. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

US Military's Role in Coordinating Efforts

As a member of the over 20-thousand strong U.S. military response to help the people of Haiti, I am surprised and hurt the only reference made to the military was the "erroneous" comment that the "doctors without borders" incident where they were not allowed to land according to the article was all the military did. The VAST majority of the response coordination was done by or with the US military. Relief flights on the airfield went from 13 a day at most to over 250 all done by a couple dozen military air traffic controllers literally talking to each other and aircraft overhead via walkie talkies. Additionally the vast majority of the logistics were due to the military. Most of the civilian relief organization would not have been able to get their assistance to the people who needed it had it not be on military helicopters or trucks and with a whole lot of military manual labor. Nothing could have happened in that international effort without the US military. I assume the writer has no interest in the obvious and would prefer not give any credit to the young men and women who left everything behind in a moment's notice to help the people of Haiti because they wore a uniform and not civilian attire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.85.9 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the navy also sent a hospital ship on the day of the disaster. I could be wrong, but it is worth a mention. WMdcu (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Still" a media word to control response

We should not be trying to control the readers response to dry facts. That is pov. Let the media do that. Student7 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The deletions here:

As of September 2010, there were [still] over one million refugees living in tents and the humanitarian situation was characterized as [still] being in the emergency phase,

And here:

In July 2010, CNN returned to Port-au-Prince and reported, "It looks like the quake just happened yesterday", and Imogen Wall, spokeswoman for the United Nations office of humanitarian affairs in Haiti, said that six months from that time it may [still] look the same.

IMO there is no use of a "media word" to control reader's response. I am not pushing my point of view or the media's point of view. It is merely a statement of the fact that (for instance) 98% of the rubble remains where it was a year ago, in other words, it is still where it was. I will not insist that the first "still" be in the article, however the other two "stills" are too important to delete. Gandydancer (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is okay to use media information. We don't have much choice, do we? But the media invariably puts their "spin" on the news which is non-encyclopedic. Unlike the media, we are not selling air time/widgets. As an encyclopedia, we try to use words that are non-controlling in their nature. We are not trying to produce a calculated affect on people. That is the difference between the media and ourselves. Otherwise, readers could just type "(media) Haiti" into their search engines and use whatever the media burps up for that day. We take the long approach and don't use "spin" words like "only", "still", "therefore" (drawing a conclusion), etc. when it is unnecessary to the article. We can give counts of people without using "still" (meaning "too many" or "too few" or "too late" or whatever) or "only" meaning "too few." Our readers, unlike television consumers, are expected to be intelligent, even researchers. We therefore don't do their thinking for them. That would be WP:POV and WP:BIAS. Let them draw the appropriate conclusion if there is one.

The media always wants to say that the government/corporation or whatever is not fast enough; that "someone" is to blame, when indeed, with the passage of time, no one may be at fault. Wikipedia does not need a scapegoat. The media feels that it does since the public seems to "demand" one. We do not feed that public. The media owns those folks.

And there are blogs, etc. that would appreciate that type of writing! Student7 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not used media spin. You felt a need to edit this sentence, "The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, set up in April 2010 and led by former US President Bill Clinton and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive to facilitate the flow of funds toward reconstruction projects and to help Haitian ministries with implementation, have, so far, started no major reconstruction", saying that it seems to implicate Clinton. I do not feel I have implicated Clinton at all. I drew this information not from a media report but from Oxfam and I will quote their words:

The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, led by former US President Bill Clinton and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, was set up in April 2010 to facilitate the flow of funds toward reconstruction projects and to help Haitian ministries with implementation. So far, the Commission has failed to live up to its mandate.

Not only did I not implicate anyone, if anything I avoided finding blame. I appreciate constructive criticism, however nitpicking is irritating and time consuming. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you have removed "and only" from this sentence, "According to Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF), most of the radio stations went off the air and only 20 of the 50 stations in Port-au-Prince were back on air a week after the earthquake.", and the word "only" from the Oxfam report on the status of rubble removal with the remark, "see other discussions on use of pov adjectives when quoting pov media". How you can call these words media spin is beyond me. Since Oxfam is concerned that so little rubble has been removed a full year since the quake, it is YOU who are spinning this information by calling Oxfam "media" and saying "The media always wants to say that the government/corporation or whatever is not fast enough; that "someone" is to blame, when indeed, with the passage of time, no one may be at fault". As for the radio section, I have rewritten it and hopefully you will be satisfied. Gandydancer (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio station reporting looks good. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to satisfy you but whatever I do you find more "only"s and "still"s. I will no longer spend my time trying to read references and rewrite the article to satisfy you. If I use direct quotes you are not happy and everything else is, in your opinion, media spin. You say:

before temporarily, seems unnecessary. Just extra word. on money, clarity shines without "only" addition because it is SO unnecessary. Using a sledge hammer where a gentle statement is more effective. And WP:POV of course. rm media spin)

I say: YOU are the one that is trying to spin the information. Gandydancer (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Editorializing. The fewer the adjectives, the less WP:POV. Student7 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Casualties section

Re this addition: "However, non-Haitian sources have place the toll from 50,000 to 92,000."

Could you please provide a recent reference? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Request ignored and no ref provided. Removed info. Gandydancer (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

These numbers are in this Wikipedia article or allied articles in Wikipedia. All out of there. No non-Haitian estimate over 90,000. The pov problem comes in when an estimate was requested early on by the media, the President said "300,000" although at that point it was not possible for even a first world country to have an accurate figure. All subsequent statements from the upper echelons of government are based on that one early guesstimate. No one else comes even close. You cannot get a more pov source than that. The government (do I need to point this out?) can't even count their own people, maintain a registry of deaths and births, collect taxes, etc. etc. Why should their figure on casualties be accepted over that of every other (first world) estimate, who, BTW, has no axe to grind and nothing to gain, by over or under-estimating casualties? Student7 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

These figures are in other Wikipedia articles: Red Cross (Reuters), 45,000-50,000, Netherlands Radio. The reports of the huge numbers are usually dutifully reported by the media as issued by the government with no explanation or supporting data. Other guesses tend to be educated and based on something other than a hunch by someone cloistered in an ivory tower someplace. They are explained to the media. The Haitian estimated, if issued by a first world government, would lead to calls for replacement of key officials. Please don't use them here without crisp qualification allowing the reader to pick and choose. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110530/ap_on_bi_ge/cb_haiti_earthquake Rodchen (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a draft report, and the source indicates internal inconsistencies. All that means is that we should avoid using hard numbers from there until the report is released in its final form. The numbers may be off between 10 and 15 percent easily, if not more, depending on their analysis. I'd move it back to the red cross estimate for now in a contest between a finished report and a non-finished one. RTRimmel (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

#Status of the recovery

#Status of the recovery makes it sound like the various aid organizations are doing an incompetent job of getting their aid deployed. I have heard several times this weekend on TV talk shows that the "real" problem is that there is a 40% tariff on foreign aid (eg, you bring in a $100K piece of construction equipment, you have to pay the government $40K to use it). According to the story, some of the bigger agencies have applied for and received exemptions, but if they want to contract work out or if smaller aid organizations want to help out, they can't do it without stroking a big check. The only non-blog place I can find online that mentions this tariff is [19]. This seems inflammatory enough, though, that if it were true, there would be mentions of it elsewhere. Can anyone else help out with some reliable sources? --B (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is true, there is no reason to believe that it would be mentioned elsewhere. Read, for instance, the refs I have supplied for the one year status reports from the various large aid groups. You do not even have to read between the lines to figure out that every country wants a piece of the rebuilding Haiti pie. (Think of Haliburton in Iraq hiring Asian workers because they were so cheap while the unemployment numbers of skilled Iraqi workers soared.)

I am familiar with something of which you speak. I live in Maine and a private individual attempted to bring relief supplies to Haiti. Locals were extremely generous, the boat was loaded, but when it arrived in Haiti they were turned back by red tape. This was widely covered here in Maine, but needless to say you did not hear any of it outside of our state. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather typical (or maybe worse) than most third world countries. Going through customs is painful for a first world inhabitant. You have no idea what you will be left with when you emerge. For small operations, stuff is sometimes successfully concealed and smuggled in. For large operations, I assume that is impossible and maybe dangerous.

Officials pay for their jobs and are expected to obtain enough baksheesh (Arabic will do here, I think) to support himself and his bosses. Their office doesn't pay enough because the government has no money.

On top of that, the UN folks, too, are from third world countries and have never seen competence in action. They, at least, get paid enough, but don't have any idea how to run anything. They have control of materials and relief agencies have to beg them to let go of them, no matter how urgent the need. The bureaucrats are well-aware of their stewardship and are trying to make no mistakes even at the cost of mortally wounding recovery.

Another day in Haiti!  :( Student7 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada's relief aid

A great deal of information was recently added to the "Recovery" section regarding Canada's relief aid. We have a line or two about the aid offered by most countries but Canada now has 23 lines. I messaged the editor that entered this information suggesting that it needed to be pared down but s/he has not responded. I'd like some thoughts. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Space shouldn't be inordinate to actual news. WP:UNDUE perhaps applies. Student7 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

max acceleration

From the USGS the max acceleration was at least 0.83, not 0.5 as mentioned here At least because it was sure measured!

Earthquake

Event ID Magnitude Date Time Lat Lon Depth Bpga Bpgv 2010rja6 7.0 1/12/2010 14:53:10 PST N18.4450 W72.5710 13.0 km 0.00 0.00

Seismic Stations

....

OBS_5: Leogane (Intensity IX) Agency: Margaret Hopper (2010) Lat: 18.5110 Lon: -72.6330 Distance: 2.4 km from epicenter Station Comp Max Vel (cm/s) Max Acc (%g) PSA: 0.3 sec (%g) 1.0 sec (%g) 3.0 sec (%g) Derived PGM 82.4948 83.3488

source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/stationlist.html#quake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.179.225 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acLZCbL2jFvI&pos=8
  • In Economy of Haiti on 2011-03-17 22:04:23, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
  • In 2010 Haiti earthquake on 2011-06-18 13:57:20, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rescue and relief efforts.

The paragraph in "Rescue & Relief Efforts" regarding the 10 Baptist volunteers who were arrested is full of misinformation. Most media reports over this situation were full of errors and spin and I am not sure where all of this info is from. The families and 10 volunteers were cautious to speak to media due to lawyers' (both US & Haitian) advice since the media took the situation septic so quickly. After everyone was safely home, some began to give information to the local media and the Baptist Press. Can these later articles, the ones with facts and not sensationalism, be used to create the short blurb on the 10 volunteers. Or if we cannot do this, can we please just remove the false information all together? Thanks.

One area I will stay away from because other than first hand knowledge, I cannot verify due to large agencies shutting down on the situation(though it is truth) is the UNICEF's involvement in the arrest. The day after one arrested volunteer made this statement to a local TV show, all photos of the UNICEF woman in question that had been on the main media internet sites were touched up with a blurring of her face. These photos had been up for many days prior. I do have a screen capture of the original photo - sans blurring.

Currently on the page: -"The missionaries claimed they were rescuing orphaned children but investigations revealed that more than 20 of the children had been taken from their parents after they were told the children would have a better life in America." Absolutely no child was taken from a parent by the team. ALL children came from 2 orphanages, with lists made of all claimed orphans and all paperwork in order according to directions given by the Haitian policeman who was with the team for most of the week helping. Investigators/lawyers actually hunted down the parents and their testimony is what cleared the volunteers.

-"By 9 March 2010, all but Silsby were deported and she remained incarcerated.[208]" No one was deported, nine were cleared of ALL charges and they came home. Some have even returned to Haiti since. (Laura was charged with some strange law that had been put into place years before under dictatorship and was given a "time served" penalty and sent to the US, don't know if she can return.)

So what do you think? Can we make corrections or at least remove the incorrect info? Would you like to see some articles from Baptist Press? Reythompson (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. We can't do anything without an acceptable reference to work with. Do you have one other than the Baptist Press? Gandydancer (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Baptist Press has been around since 1946, and is a Monday through Friday international news wire service. Their central bureau is in Nashville, TN and they have four partnering bureaus in Vinginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and D.C. They also formed BP Sports in 2000, which provides scores and features on the many colleges an universities connected with the Southern Baptist Convention. They also cover Christian amateur and professional athletes and coaches across all sports.

Baptist Press' circulation reaches to 40 state Baptist newspapers. The individual combined circulation is 1.16 million with even more than that due to partnerships with other Christian and secular media outlets. They are present in hard copy and on the internet in English and Spanish. http://www.bpnews.net/AboutUs.asp

Why are they not an "acceptable reference to work with?" Reythompson (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate the general media's exaggeration and then abandonment of the event when it proved to be less interesting. They do that a lot. We really need here something to refute or correctly summarize the event, that was on the "same level" as the original reporting media, who may have had it all wrong. IMO, for this case, Baptist Press just would not be quite at this level. But if well-worded, might be used to add to the article.

Note that we had to do this for casualty count which the Haitian government clearly sat in their offices and threw darts to determine the count. We had to keep their guess, because it was "official" though well off the mark. So we are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

So we can say, ABC reported early on that...." However, the Baptist Press later said that "..." Once we get a report at the same level as ABC, we can replace the whole thing. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to get back to this and forgot... Student7, there is some information here New Life Children's Refuge case. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Student 7. You are quite correct in your assessment of the media's actions. I think that is a wonderful idea to add to if it cannot be completely corrected. Gandydancer, I read the first paragraph on the link you mentioned... already finding half truths and all out lies. They became a part of the media circus that will do anything to catch viewership -including lying and giving life to their own story. So... I was in a high school teacher workshop recently and we began discussing the use of wikipedia as a resource for our students in research. At the time I was on the side of allowing it and I verbally backed it as a successful self-governed source of research. We even discussed the speed and accuracy found in correcting mistakes. After the discussion, I randomly went to a subject I was personally familiar with (Haiti Earthquake 2010) and found the glaring errors reported as fact because of the media's spin. I understand why there are rules on personal research... but I am incredibly concerned that the way this is set up, it allows the mainstream media to provide the "facts" and they are considered truth just because they were in the media (in my personal experience, the lying media.) Primary documents are the core to truth, secondary word/documents can be very dangerous if they are not governed. So am I just out of luck with this? If so, I am okay with leaving it be... but it will change my approach in how I allow my students to use Wikipedia due to the discrepancies and they way they are protected. Thanks for this dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reythompson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Reythompson (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely good advice for high school students! There are disclaimers on the Wikipedia site saying that it should not be used directly for research. We can be the source of reference material through footnotes and stuff at the bottom of the article. Researching students will need to weigh the reliability and importance of those as well. Wikipedia is not Britannica! For me, Wikipedia provides the framework for what I want to know. It's often correct, or "close enough." And (sorry), 80% of the readers do not care whether the intended rescuers left of their own accord or were asked to leave. In Haiti, which is in chaos normally, nevermind after an earthquake, following "due procedure" is abnormal anyway!

Also, we may need to cut the media a little slack. They report what they are told. They do not follow up every fact due to deadlines. I found errors in my hometown newspaper about a non-controversial topic. They reported what the speaker(s) said. The speakers had their facts wrong! In this incident in Haiti, the media likely contacted some government official (remember, not easy with the phones and roads out. Under deadlines, media takes the "easiest" route to sources) which probably stated (not knowing or caring) the people were "deported" when asked. They really had no way of following this up. In a first world country, this would be considered reliable information! Student7 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my students are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source in a project, but I have encouraged them to use the information as a springboard toward solid sources.

I appreciate the frank and respectful discussion we have had, however I see that my concerns can not be addressed so I will make this my last posting unless a response warrants further dialogue. I will address your last post and be done, thank you for the opportunity to be heard. -You are definitely right, most were not touched by the rescuer's situation, so that 80% (or even higher) will not care. However, there are those who do care and truth should be a goal whether 10% or 100% care. The group was cleared of all charges by way of the Haitian court system, a Napoleonic code driven system that put them in a spot to prove their innocence once UNICEF pressed charges, which they did. Innocent and released, they left the country; though I must admit the term "deportation" sounds much more exciting in the media. -I cannot give the media much slack in their handling of this situation. They were sharks and they took direct words from anyone they could get to talk and spun their imaginary story for ratings. I know this because my words were cut, spliced, and used improperly; as were many others. Yes, the media got wrong info from govt officials, etc.... but they got correct info from ME and misused it. This is why I am being hard on them. I am required to use the very media that seeded the lies to prove the truth if I want to correct the Wikipedia information. Herein lies my quandary. Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to carry on this public dialogue. I am disappointed that nothing can be changed, but understand that that is not a possibility as long as Wikipedia places such strong reliance on the media. I also understand the can of worms opening up personal experience would create - we people are not naturally prone to honesty... unfortunately. Take care. Reythompson (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Reythompson and I'm glad that at least on the Wikipedia talk page you could have your say. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time that we are bound by Wikipedia policy to report only what we find in acceptable references which may have slanted the facts. This policy generally works pretty well, but you may have pointed out an instance when it does not do a fair reporting of events. On the other hand, while I am no longer associated with any religious sect, I was raised Catholic and am familiar with Mormonism, and I have seen articles that attempt to use religious sources to slant articles to their point of view. Never-the-less, I feel that you are a good example to your students in trying to present what you believe is more accurate information. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this has been useful!

Just entered the "Napoleonic Code" in the Haiti main article, which wasn't there before.

Find all sorts of references to "guilty until proved innocent," but none by a WP:RS. Not in NC article, nor in "Roman Law" article, which the NC is supposed to be based on and all blogs swear that the Roman law is why the NC presumes guilt. Can anyone help or provide info? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Another discovery: Napoleonic Code does not apply to criminal law. Torts, and that sort of thing. Neither did Roman Law presume guilt (which included torts for everything including criminal). Burden was on accuser. Can be misused, of course. Student7 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a short explanation of the Napoleonic Code and how criminal law has been added under its umbrella over years: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2100.html Hope this helps. Reythompson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Edit request on 8 December 2011 - incorrect death toll

Please note that the figure quoted for the haitian governments estimate for the death toll reads 316,000 in the article, where it should read 216,000

Please amend

Chrisluche (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a citation in the lead to match that in the infobox for the 316,000 figure, which is properly cited. Mikenorton (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:EscombrosBelAir5 Edit1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:EscombrosBelAir5 Edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 12, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A United Nations vehicle patrols the streets of the Bel-Air neighborhood of Port-au-Prince in the aftermath of the catastrophic 2010 Haiti earthquake. The earthquake occurred at 16:53 local time (21:53 UTC) on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. An estimated three million people were affected by the earthquake, with an estimated 280,000 buildings severely damaged or destroyed.Photo: Marcello Casal Jr, Agência Brasil

Number of deaths controversy

Considering that USAID has never published the controversial report that states much lower death and damage figures at their website and has not changed any numbers that the report questioned, I believe that their mention should be removed from the lede. Furthermore, considering the sources, Japan Times and Netherlands radio, I believe that the other's estimates should all be removed as well. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can't have uncited material, if that is what you are saying. I'm pretty sure the figures are inflated, but we need supporting figures from somebody. (Cites are discouraged in the lead anyway, but it should summarize material cited in the body of the article).

What is aggravating is that we are talking a dysfunctional government here, which had and still has no way of determining its own population, much less the capability of estimating huge damage, much less in a short amount of time. Gandydancer is probably more WP:RS than the Haitian government when it comes to estimating casualties. That is, the government is not a WP:RS IMO! And we are falling back on that? That seems incongruous somehow. Student7 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd believe secondhand reports from neutral sources before believing the Haitian government. The government has no way of making counts of any sort, even in the best of times. After an earthquake, communication was reduced from appalling to non-existent. The bureaucracy is mainly concerned with keeping themselves alive, not providing any "services" to whoever. Typical third world, but worse here. IMO, keep the second-hand sources unless they have an obvious axe to grind. They've got to be more reliable than the government. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that they are probably not accurate but it is the figure still being used by all the news reports that I run across. The reports that used Japan as a source are no longer available, but I plan to put the Netherlands report back in the deaths section as I continue to work on an update for January 2012. Gandydancer (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section? and "Problems with prioritization of flights" should specify the military context

The "Number of deaths controversy" is hardly the only controversy surrounding this -- international emphasis on a militarized response that priveleged guns over doctors, priveleging of elite and international victims over the poor (and spending military resources on securing these zones against a population perceived as hostile despite lack of aggression), emphasis of the international media on looting and fabricated reports of "widespread gang violence," use of the earthquake as a premise for deepening the anti-democratic role of NGOs and sweatshops in administration/economy of Haiti, the shutting out of Haitians and their government from 95% of the relief funds (such that the funds fuel an enclave of NGOs and their security/services, wholly disconnected from the economy of the poor who the money is intended to reach).

An excellent account of Haiti after the earthquake appears in the afterword of "Damming the Flood" by Peter Hallward, and is thick with citations. Of course, while the US and UN advertise their role in Haiti as a benevolent one, the substance of their role is often lacking in benevolence, and tends to be quite anti-democratic in fact -- this dynamic precedes the earthquake but was exacerbated by it. "Damming the Flood" is also a good reference for this, as is Paul Farmer's recent book "Haiti: After the Earthquake." Also, the weekly publication "Haiti Liberte," along with more well-known sources such as Al Jazeera, detail these notions quite well.

In addition to Hallward and Farmer, there are also articles, interviews, and video segments from Robert Fatton, Noam Chomsky, and Patrick Elie, which all touch on the controversies behind the international response. They're all reputable voices on Haiti, and if anything my above summary of what I've gleaned from them, is a sugarcoated summary. And of course, even the more pro-elite/pro-2004-coup voices on Haiti, such as Michael Deibert and Alex Dupuy, generally agree that the international response to the earthquake has been quite ineffective and often caused more harm than good (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703043.html). Just thought I'd mention that last point, to preempt anyone who might suggest that I'm angling for a left-wing spin... the failure and destructive bent of the international community in the response effort, is a nearly unanimous conclusion of very many commentators of all ideological stripes, including some such as Paul Farmer who are motivated less by ideology than by their professional expertise and on-the-ground experience in actual aid and relief throughout Haiti.

I know several of these controversial aspects have been mentioned in the article but I think altogether that "controversy" and criticism merits its own section. Especially since there is a "number of deaths controversy" section, which sort of implies that the counting of deaths is the only controversy.

Also, the intro mentions that international efforts were in part hampered by "problems with prioritization of flights" which is highly misleading -- it suggests this was a simple logistical problem, when in fact it had to do with US rerouting of flights to privilege military flights over medical/humanitarian ones. This was just a single component of the larger emphasis of guns over doctors that was chief among obstacles to rescue and relief. It's something that has been criticized by more reputable observers and on-the-ground professionals than I can count. So context must be added to the intro -- the prioritization of flights wasn't just a logistical blip, it was a politicized decision that had a tremendously destructive consequence. It's why some folks such as Noam Chomsky call this a largely man-made disaster. Please change the intro. 69.115.35.73 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cuba provided early and continuing medical aid to Hait, more than many larger countries and yet is missing from this article.

Cuba's extensive medical aid to Haiti is not mentioned in this article.

It is well known and discussed on the web and other media that Cuba's contributions were significant before the Earthquake and they were the first to respond and continued to the present. To omit Cuba is to distort the medical aid picture, as has been done in the main stream media.

Here are just a few quick links that discus this issue.

http://www.haitian-truth.org/un-stresses-cuban-medical-aid-to-cholera-wreaked-haiti/ http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/media-ignored-cuba%E2%80%99s-medical-aid-to-haiti/ http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-cuba-provided-the-greatest-medical-aid-to-haiti-after-the-earthquake/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/04/01/cuban-medical-aid-to-haiti/

Wdteague (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Feb 2011

I noticed that in the first paragraph, which was obviously written by a British person, 'epicenter' is spelled 'epicentre'. Clicking on the link automatically redirects you to the page with an American spelling. Please fix it so it says "Epicenter". Thanks. 64.134.149.64 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• The entire article used a consistent style (Epicentre) and (Centre). The epicentre link brings you to an article that highlights both are used. Centre for International Studies and Co-operation is indeed spelled with centre. The article should be reverted to the original useage. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Article is, and has been, in American English dialect (see above). "Consistency" is not an issue here. Someone can change "Centre for..." back, if that is it's actual name. Student7 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to see above other than you changing every epicentre and centre to thier American English equivalents? The article appears to have been using Canadian English standards and should be left that way. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English should help determining the style to be used... for consitency's sake. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style

For most of its history this article was written in what appears to have been Canadian English. It use was characterised by words like epicentre, centre, organization. Student7 elected to place an American English banner on the talk page on 16:44, 23 December 2010‎ and since then has been "policing" this policy. However, the article remains primarly in Canadian English with the one exception of the first usage of epicentre. If MOS:RETAIN is to be respected this usage should be changed back or the entire artcle converted to one style. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Sphere of influence has something to do with this. I could have been the first person to edit Brittany, but it would be specious to assume that it was American English for that reason. It is within the UK "sphere," as is most, if not all of Europe. I have had my knuckles rapped by fellow-Americans for "correcting" ancient middle east articles from UK spelling based on my research that an American happened to convert it from the older Wikipedia version. This is needed for consistency; else an Indian English speaker could create a "History of Brittany", a Canadian, "Geography of Brittany", etc. Some sanity checks are needed. This is not about national aggrandizement, but readability. I am acutely aware of the problem of US-Centricism in making these decisions. And I confess, that Canadians seem to get stepped on worse than (say) New Zealanders or Australians. Or maybe they just notice more often!

I am probably the most neutral labeler I have encountered, having reverted a fair number of Americans from "correcting" what they thought were spelling errors in UK dialect articles. Have to admit that detecting "Canadian English" is a bit harder for me. But I don't think that is the issue here. Almost no articles have been banner-labeled labeled from day 1. I do try to research it historically, when possible. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this raises the question on what basis did you make the decision to banner label it? It seems you raise a notion of sphere of influce? Would this apply to an article on Cuba and as such adopt American English? I suspect most folks from Cuba would have an issue with this :P Regardless, I noted when you put the banner on you simply stated that it appears to have been started by an American. With this said I am sure we have other more imprtant things to worry about. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording

Hi there. I think this sentence should be revised "Port-au-Prince's morgues were quickly overwhelmed with many tens of thousands of bodies having to be buried in mass graves.[17] "

I think the word many is unneccessary.

The sentence might read better as: "Port-au-Prince's morgues were quickly overwhelmed with tens of thousands of bodies having to be buried in mass graves.[17]"

 DoneStudent7 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Hi,

There is a "See also" section towards the end. It lists several other disasters. I don't quite understand how is that section useful in this article. I would remove it.

Robkirwan (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It is helpful if one is researching earthquakes or disasters in general. Floating Boat A boat that can float! 10:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Estimate

It is reasonably evident that the Haiatian government claims of over 300,000 dead are wrong. Other claims quoted in the article are much lower. Yet the introduction refers only to the discredited higher estimate. Shouldn't it instead say estimates range from 50,000 to over 300,000?203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, agreed. It would have to be done carefully. Right now, the wording is accurate - that the Haitian government made those estimates. So the replacement numbers would have to be done with equal meticulousness. Student7 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Isaac

Do you think the text should have a wiki-link to Hurricane Isaac instead of Tropical Storm Isaac? It just became a hurricane. I understand that it was only a tropical storm when it hit Haiti, but at least the wiki-link should be changed. Just a thought, –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it took quite awhile for the eye to form (per the hurricane article, an interesting read, BTW). Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really relevant what the storm was classified afterwards. If link is to Hurricane, it would have to be piped to "Tropical Storm" for this article since that is what it was when it struck. Student7 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Guarda234 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Hellow, In the paragraph "Status of the recovery","you wrote In October, a cholera epidemic broke out, probably introduced by foreign aid workers." This is not true, and could be a problem for foreign worfkers. Even the UN experts agreed in their report that the epidemic began in Meye, where no foreign aidworkers were based, but a UN base. So, if you don't want to point out the UN Base please avoid this juridically sensitive topic.

Respectfully

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no question but that the epidemic was brought to Haiti by aid workers. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Evacuation

On January 2010 Haiti was hit by the most powerful earthquake to hit the country in 200 years, killing more than 220,000 people and leaving 300 injured and one million homeless(Oxfam). Haiti’s was the poorest country in the Americas with about 80 percent of the population living below the poverty line, and 70 percent of the population are not in salary employment(Oxfam). In addition one out of every two people had food insecurity, meaning they are suffering from starvation. Needless to say preparation and evacuation is not attainable for the Haitian population. Regrettably, the people of Haiti were not fortunate enough to relinquish their country because of all the scare amount of resources available. Moreover, because of this tragedy the United States is developing new ways to rebuild Haiti and to also develop new ways to make Haiti more less prone to disasters, but building stronger facilities such a s schools and hospitals. It is safe to say that there were no evacuation stragies that were conjured up for the preparation of the Haiti earthquake. For the lack of information given about the evacuation(simply because there was not an evacuation)that need to be stated in the this Wiki page, and gives the reasoning as to why there was not an evacuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.219.173 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Haiti Earthquake- children and youth affected

Nunan, M.P.. "UNICEF - At a glance: Haiti - Haiti's youth ready to act in post-earthquake era." UNICEF - UNICEF Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. Haiti's youth ready to act in post-earthquake era There were a lot of young teenagers that came together to make a change in their country. During voting season the youth demanded that their voices be heard and understood. Nearly half of the Haiti populations are under 18 years old. There was an interesting statement that was done by a 17 year old who was speaking in front of the UNICEF staffer. He stated “you all say that the children are the future- but we are the present. So it’s now that we have to act with you.” This is a very interesting point that goes straight to the point and makes others listen to what is really important. About 4.3 million young children have limited opportunities for survival. After two years from the Haiti earthquake we are able to see some improvement with the society and youth and children. Many new schools and residents have been built as well. GFJ12 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

Three major English-language books on the earthquake were published in 2013. These should be included in the "further reading" section:

Katz, Jonathan M. The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. ISBN 978-0230341876 Laferrière, Dany The World is Moving Around Me: A Memoir of the Haiti Earthquake. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2013. ISBN 978-1551524986 Wilentz, Amy Farewell, Fred Voodoo: A Letter from Haiti. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013. ISBN 978-1451643978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.171.6 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Victims

Whilst there is a section on casualties, the article ostensibly supports the official- and questionable - claim of over 300,000 victims. The doubtfulness of that figure should be noted.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the one that is widely used. If you have a new RS that refutes the one that is now generally accepted it can be added. Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. We've fought this out rather extensively in the past. The earthquake occurred. Without missing a beat, the government announced for all the world to hear that 300,000 people had died. It sounded impressive and got the intention that was intended.

For those who do not know, Haiti does not really have a government in the usual sense meant in the first world. There is no functioning local police chief or fire marshal or hospital or census that can even begin to make an accurate count. Oh, and no phone "system" (some cells!), no "post office," etc. As far as anyone can figure, someone threw darts at a board in some government office and arrived at 300,000, a catchy figure, as it turns out, causing endless amount of discussion.

BUT, no outside neutral source, like the Red Cross, the United Nations, the United States, etc. has even come up with a figure above 230,000. To most observers, even that sounds high. This figure is now being used in the Haiti article somehow. In the good old days, when everyone was paying attention, other, much lower figures were published, one by one; some as low as 100,000. A lot of people died, just not "300,000." Student7 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Student7 - we will never know how many died. When not only whole families but whole neighborhoods are buried and then the communication problems, etc., that Student7 refers to on top of that...plus the fact that there would certainly be an advantage to putting the figure as high as possible... On the other hand, none of the other figures, made within hours of the quake, should become the "official" figure either. In the end we have no choice but to report the "official" figure regardless of our own personal feelings about that figure. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Without missing a beat" is not correct. It took a few months for the 300,000+ figure to be arrived at. The source of the 230,000 figure was also the Haitian government, it's just that the UN and other entities stopped raising their number. It is correct that "Nobody knows how many died as a result of the earthquake." (The Big Truck That Went By, 70) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Romel Joseph Day

Should be covered by relief and recovery sections in the main article. RomanSpa (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

On the first line in the summary at the top you have said that the Haiti earthquake was a 7.0 magnitude on the rector scale but it is 7.8 as described on a documentary on this subject, I can not remember what documentary it was and I hope that this is no inconvenience. 81.158.129.129 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done All the sources, particularly the scientific papers written since the earthquake give a moment magnitude of 7.0, so no reason to change to an unsourced 7.8. Mikenorton (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2015

The Haiti earthquake in culture

The artist Frankétienne painted his work Désastre (12 janvier 2010) days after the incident. He represented his sorrow for the catastrophe, capturing the victims trapped in the rubble.

Manuelcasanovafernandez (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request made Amortias (T)(C) 20:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you are recommending any major content addition, please be prepared to supply a reliable source which verifies the information you want to add. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100119072338/http://www.israel21c.org:80/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq to http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100119030827/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/calgary/story/2010/01/15/calgary-haiti-alberta-donations-stelmach-red-cross.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/01/15/calgary-haiti-alberta-donations-stelmach-red-cross.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100126041540/http://www.montrealgazette.com:80/Quebec+hands+emergency+Haiti/2453273/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/Quebec+hands+emergency+Haiti/2453273/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100330065721/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/world/europe/Archbishop-of-Port-au-Prince-dies-in-Haiti-earthquake/articleshow/5442266.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Archbishop-of-Port-au-Prince-dies-in-Haiti-earthquake/articleshow/5442266.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214071927/http://hdrstats.undp.org:80/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_HTI.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_HTI.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117035802/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_476705.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_476705.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120922083600/http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/1429883.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/1429883.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120927182208/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1425090.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1425090.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120922083952/http://www.miamiherald.com/582/story/1431558.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/582/story/1431558.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629033428/http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7549631 to http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7549631
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120629101419/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6826503.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6826503.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120923125848/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1426067.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1426067.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110423232301/http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/societe/20100114.FAP2717/haiti_les_rescapes_evacues_a_la_martinique_decrivent_le.html to http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/societe/20100114.FAP2717/haiti_les_rescapes_evacues_a_la_martinique_decrivent_le.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that 2010 Jacmel earthquake be merged into this article. Originally located in a section of the Jacmel article, it was moved into its own article in 2011. For starters, there was no 2010 "Jacmel earthquake," it was the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which in namesake should be able to cover all the areas affected (unless there are notable events that speak of "aftermaths of" [example: effected the economy down the line etc.] which there isn't.) The earthquake hit in the middle of 3 major cities, Léogâne, Port-au-Prince and Jacmel. To cater to one city, and to create its own article, which was originally from "a section" detailing its damages seems redundant. This should be included as a section somewhere in this article. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagging editors to discussion with active accounts, recent and/or major edit contributions to this page: @Reenem, Student7, DLinth, Gandydancer, Ohconfucius. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the note. Seems like a good idea to me... Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This might be a better home for the contents, however a couple of thought: (1) if the source was simply merged into this article it would seem to place too much undue weight on Jacmel; (2) the current format of the proposed source is effectively a list, and needs to be rewritten into a narrative format. With this in mind, I would support a merge, or rather an integration of the content into this article, but with much copy-editing needed. A simply cut/paste or merge would be inappropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Gandydancer, Tiggerjay. Yes, I could appropriate the information on Jacmel accordingly to even it out. (Sorry for the late response). Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection request

please remove semi-protection from this page, applied in February 2011 shortly after this event. There have been very very few updates to this article, and unprotection might help the condition of the article. generic_hipster 21:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605122458/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117071429/http://www.pih.org/inforesources/news/Haiti_Earthquake.html to http://www.pih.org/inforesources/news/Haiti_Earthquake.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120081649/http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Fears+violence+Haitians+grow+desperate/2450845/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Fears
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427015403/http://www.newyorkdailytimes.com/news/story/y/75005_as-haiti-mourns-quake-survivor-found-in-rubble.htm to http://www.newyorkdailytimes.com/news/story/y/75005_as-haiti-mourns-quake-survivor-found-in-rubble.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://de.news.yahoo.com/26/20100115/tdefault-boschafter-mehrere-minister-unter-de-7458eeb.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/many-casualties-expected-after-273518.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116160020/http://www.ig.utexas.edu/jsg/18_cgg/Mann3.htm to http://www.ig.utexas.edu/jsg/18_cgg/Mann3.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lematinhaiti.com/Article.asp?ID=14646

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

There is a missing w in "widely in the following sentence:"

"these have been idely characterized as deliberately inflated"

->

these have been widely characterized as deliberately inflated Travelwriter1000 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Death toll

Lots of people died in the earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKeith1 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quake-california-20110226%2C0%2C1231448.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102217/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010808076_haiticontrol16.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010808076_haiticontrol16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330060926/http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/haiti-quake-death-toll-well-under-100000 to http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/haiti-quake-death-toll-well-under-100000
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1953379_1953494_1954342%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C582937%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123070653/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=337312&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=337312&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=weather%2Fearthquake_center&id=7217433
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C20797%2C26587037-5003402%2C00.html?from=public_rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324110603/http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/haiti to http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/haiti
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Fears%2Bviolence%2BHaitians%2Bgrow%2Bdesperate/2450845/story.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20100117/not_imp496977%2C0.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1953379_1953494%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/americans_charged_with_kidnapping_wMQSWOz5mQfjWjTe3nrPhN
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/01/15/calgary-haiti-alberta-donations-stelmach-red-cross.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/Quebec%2Bhands%2Bemergency%2BHaiti/2453273/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817010307/http://www.counterpunch.org/schuller08092010.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/schuller08092010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430020806/http://ijdh.org/archives/24151 to http://ijdh.org/archives/24151
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829213939/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/tropical-storm-isaac-douses-haiti-killing-4-before-crossing-cuba-and-aiming-at-florida/2012/08/25/8ec69584-ef13-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html?wprss=rss_social-world-headlines&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed to http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/tropical-storm-isaac-douses-haiti-killing-4-before-crossing-cuba-and-aiming-at-florida/2012/08/25/8ec69584-ef13-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html?wprss=rss_social-world-headlines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115110510/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://de.news.yahoo.com/26/20100115/tdefault-boschafter-mehrere-minister-unter-de-7458eeb.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029105029/http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Haiti to http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Haiti
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115110510/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us2010rja6/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqlCNHdQ?url=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/2010rja6/index.html to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/2010rja6/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115110505/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/events/us/2010rja6/us/index.html to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/events/us/2010rja6/us/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/many-casualties-expected-after-273518.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jcoba.org.jm/earthquake/files/DeformJaGPS2007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lematinhaiti.com/Article.asp?ID=14646
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-haiti-artists24-2010jan24%2C0%2C5707519.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2010 Haiti earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207005409/http://www.theage.com.au/world/haitians-angry-over-slow-aid-20100204-ng2g.html to http://www.theage.com.au/world/haitians-angry-over-slow-aid-20100204-ng2g.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118025211/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-27/world/chile.quake_1_magnitude-haiti-quake-chilean-president-michelle-bachelet?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-27/world/chile.quake_1_magnitude-haiti-quake-chilean-president-michelle-bachelet?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124012203/http://www.clicanoo.com/index.php?page=article&id_article=233717 to http://www.clicanoo.com/index.php?id_article=233717&page=article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125184926/http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sports/HAITI-VISIT_7336253 to http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sports/HAITI-VISIT_7336253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406051436/http://www.europapress.es/latam/republicadominicana/noticia-haiti-republica-dominicana-envia-haiti-equipos-emergencia-ayudar-rescate-victimas-20100113162157.html to http://www.europapress.es/latam/republicadominicana/noticia-haiti-republica-dominicana-envia-haiti-equipos-emergencia-ayudar-rescate-victimas-20100113162157.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512232128/http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/haiti-rewireds-mission to http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/haiti-rewireds-mission
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501041318/http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=68c339cf-e29d-4a28-8e28-e89b6ff80f03 to http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=68c339cf-e29d-4a28-8e28-e89b6ff80f03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825235800/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13462431-aid-workers-prep-haitis-tent-city-residents-for-isaacs-onlsaught?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13462431-aid-workers-prep-haitis-tent-city-residents-for-isaacs-onlsaught?lite
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eshelter-cccmhaiti.info/jl/images/sheltercccm%20cluster%20-%20hct%20meeting%2014082013%20.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqlCDrAo?url=http://www.lematinhaiti.com/Article.asp?ID=14646 to http://www.lematinhaiti.com/Article.asp?ID=14646
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.whistlerquestion.com/article/20100113/WHISTLER20/301139905/-1/WHISTLER/aid-workers-face-frightening-challenges-in-wake-of-massive-quake-in

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

the haiti earthquake had a death toll of 230000 not 160000 Luca micheal cunliffe (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

There have been more recent reports suggesting that the death toll was closer to 50,000, and that the inflated initial reports were due to either incompetence (by journalists) or official exaggeration (in order to boost overseas aid). Why is there no reference to this? The stated death toll is clearly excessive.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "Demographics of Haiti" page shows not the slightest uptick in deaths in Haiti in 2010. It would be nice if one or the other (or both) of these pages were fixed.128.187.112.7 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

In the first paragraph, it says that Léogâne is approximately 25 kilometres from Port-au-prince, however a closer estimate is 30.Dragonballzeke (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording slightly to make it clear that the epicentre was near Léogâne and about 25 km from Port-au-Prince. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Humanitarian OpenStreetMap is looking for people who have been involved in the response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake

as per this message. I think contributing to the writing of this Wikipedia article or related wiki resources would qualify as involvement in that sense, and I would be most happy if some of those involved back then would hare their observations as requested. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive for Citation Not Working

(I'm new to Talk pages and Wikipedia editing in general so if I'm going about this wrong please just let me know.)

The following citation's archive is not working: Brannigan, Martha (15 January 2010). "Haiti seaport damage complicates relief efforts". The Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 23 September 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2010.

(It's currently citation number 57.)

This means I cannot validate the information nor show that it's a reliable source.

Jadiker (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

I think that the time and magnitude of the Earthquake are inccorect many sources disagree with the information on the page 2A00:23C4:3D34:EA01:864:5227:8839:9253 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)