:::::Yeah, I saw it on CNN as well. But then they also said on CNN that a family that lost their child then had to go to the cemetary with pick and shovel to dig the grave themselves...later I learned that they don't bury their dead in Haiti. Thanks for not reverting it - I'm not usually so bold on an article that I'm not working on, but it seemed like the right thing to do. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I saw it on CNN as well. But then they also said on CNN that a family that lost their child then had to go to the cemetary with pick and shovel to dig the grave themselves...later I learned that they don't bury their dead in Haiti. Thanks for not reverting it - I'm not usually so bold on an article that I'm not working on, but it seemed like the right thing to do. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
::::: They bury their dead in Haiti. - [[Special:Contributions/63.239.65.10|63.239.65.10]] ([[User talk:63.239.65.10|talk]]) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
We had a few anon. IP editors warring a little over whether we shoud have links to Aid Organisations. Is this ever done? Personally I can't see the harm, at least while this is a current event(and assuming they are legitimate orgs. like the Red Cross). I suggested they try WikiNews instead. Any opinions? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate to include links or account numbers or whatever similar here. If nothing else, someone may be using it as a scam. Let the news houses take care of that. Or wikinews, I don't know what the policy is there. --Tone09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that we are showing clear bias towards certain charities over others, which is a serious compromise to the standards contributors have set over the years.
Fanatical and Overzealous Link Deletion: Wikipedia states in it's its guidelines that one should not be fanatical about rules but should look at the overall mission of Wikipedia. Removal of Red Cross Aid links is absurd and fanatical. I have changed the Red Cross link to its DMOZ link. I ask for help from other wiki editors and administrators to stop fanatical and mindless deletion of nonprofit aid links, especially in an emergency. Please help by appealing over the heads of narrow rule interpretations and fanatical link deletions. Relevant nonprofit links were not what Wikipedia had in mind when they talked about reducing links.
I am not saying there should be tons of non-profit links but a few relevant ones (especially using DMOZ) is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy.
"the Americas" is synonymous with "the Western Hemisphere." It's geographical, not cultural, unlike when people say "the West," which means Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Rafajs77 (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the West" is not restricted to the countries you mentioned. You forgot to mention the whole Latin America. The term is used to described any culture directly derived from European cultures. 189.122.97.192 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have any cruise ships been affected? I remember having sailed into Grand Turk after the port opened after the recent hurricane (was it Ike?) that had struck there. 68.83.179.156 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Caribbean has a private resort on Haiti called Labadee. It's a fair distance from the epicentre and from what I've read the initial survey didn't show any damage. The first ship due to arrive after the earthquake is the Independence of the Seas, on Friday, January 15th. They haven't announced any changes to the itinerary as of this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prediction?
The 1692 Jamaica earthquake article included a link to a journal article in which an earthquake of roughly this size was forecasted in 2006. not sure if it's relevant, or how to handle, so put in some language under Background.Stu 05:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
220.255.127.193 deleted the language, commenting it was a different fault system. I added references both to USGS report on this earthquake, and also on the 2006 study, which seems to suggest it was the same fault system. can anyone confirm?Stu 06:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at what you're adding, but it sounds awfully like WP:Syn to me. I suggest you wait until some source discussing this earthquake mentions the 2006 study/predicition. Edit: I did find [2] but I don't suggest it be added to the article as it isn't a great source and a minor point anyway since as mentioned 2009 L'Aquila earthquake#Prior warning controversy & [3], earthquake predicitions are notoriously unreliable but not that uncommon so it's unsurprising if someone 'predicted' many of the quakes that happen (what people forget is all the similar 'predictions' that don't pan out). If the controversy gets big enough like the L'Aquila earthquake example, then we probably should have something in the article, with appropriate WP:weightNil Einne (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrondissement and Department
The arrondissement and department articles need to be updated to account for the earthquake, not just the Port-au-Prince city and Haiti articles.
Given the relatively unknown name of the Capital (in Europe, in any case), and the size of the area affected within Haiti as a whole, not just those areas within the Capital, it would probably be best to leave the title of the document as 'Haiti Earthquake' as opposed to naming it for the capital. Certainly in all news reports, particularly BBC, the event is being reported as the 'Haiti Earthquake' and as a result it the phrase which most users will use to search for the event. Perhaps as opposed to renaming the article, that a rederection from 'Port-au-Prince earthquake' is established. Possibly, with years to come, what the event is referred to as may change, however, until that point, we should use the name that is most common in today's reports. The Red Threat (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With rescue effects still underway and news still too sketchy to be certain, <?>isn’t it too soon to have this article? It’s terribly tasteless (not to mention disrespectful) to be speaking of such an event while the dying are still dying, and at any rate for at least a week or so all news coming out of the event will be unreliable.174.25.99.225 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)A. REDDSON[reply]
People paid to write about such events are never blamed the way people who do it for free seem to be. Other than that, your criticisms are too vague - which information in the article do you feel is doubtful? Evercat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to talk about it than not to. How can you consider any dissemination of information about a current crisis to be in poor taste? People are desperate to know what is going on, and Wikipedia is a respected resource for sharing information. You came here for a reason, most likely to either learn more about the crisis or to criticize a current event article while people are still looking at it. The former is the reason the article exists and why most have come here. The latter is just tasteless and disrespectful. Damien Qui (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP 174 has a point regarding the unreliability of early news. But it's going to happen, without locking every article related to Haiti, and any article name variation on Haiti Earthquake, people are coming here for info, see this. Views of the Haiti article have increased 300-400% against yesterday. Tomorrow it will be even more. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the power of wikipedia and modern media is well illustrated by how quickly the editors begin compiling data, verifying it as it comes and and cross referencing multiple sources from around the world to make a current article. I've seen this article update to more current information about casualties and responses while major news networks are still reporting unverified information or information that isn't current to the situation. It is important to get the information to the people with the highest intention of truthfully recording this tragedy and updating our chronically as faithfully as possible. Scribeofargos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Further to my comments above Scribeofargos, I wonder If any News Agencies are coming here, at least for a broad overview of what's happening? They could never afford the number of people, checking sources and scouring the Net that do it here for free! So long as we maintain NPOV and VERIFY etc. I have noticed some (other) IPs linked to Goverments adding details, not always sourced, that may be seen as favourable to their country! There was also some edit warring over inclusion of donation links to Aid Agencies.
Don't forget that many discovered this newly created article through googling, but google itself did not discover this article until sometime yesterday. In the meantime wikipedians were adding new information both here and also at the Haiti article, initially without creating a link from there to here. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC):::: The news is inundated with images and stories of relief efforts. This is a good thing. This article will be here in 6 months when people vaguely remember something or other happened in some Caribbean island, maybe Martinique, or Aruba...some kind of disaster or something... Hopefully this article will be comprehensive when folks go to jog their memories. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon? People will forget about Haiti one week from now. Also, Ppl know that this news is "young" so they should know not to take this seriously. Unless they are really dumb.Phead128 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not to soon, an interesting detail is that even with the show of compassion now going on, the first 24 hours the western (and i think worldwide) public has not relevantly been informed as to the scale, nothing for certain ofcourse, but going to bed to perhaps a 100 dead and getting up at estimates reaching a 100k leaves a bitter taste, i just can't belief nothing was obvious the first 24 hours in the information society, likewise comments from twitter etc., i saw, never seemed to acces the scale in a rational manner. much could be improved for early reactions, also by correspondents locally giving more descriptive reporting. don't go it's pov., it is at least very curious it took 24 hours to allow the worlds public an assesment of the scales, and the aid's organisations responses a day late should not be allowed to gain credibility from that, whence otherways the next incident will also be smoothed untill it is late.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain how Venezuela was affected? Only the infobox states that it was affected by the earthquake, while there is no other mentions of it or references. --12george1 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US Geological Survey has a website which collects reports from people who feel earthquakes. See [4] for the summary on this quake. They've received 12 reports from Venezuela of feeling the earthquake. Pretty amazing since it's 1000 miles away.Stu 16:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu (talk • contribs)
But feeling an earthquake and being affected by it are two different things - for instance, have roads, water, or electric been disrupted in Venezuela? If so, to me then the nation is affected; if not then it seems a little much to make it seem as such.206.251.7.31 (talk)
Fair point, but the current text of the article reads "felt" not "affected by" so it seems ok. admittedly the fact it was felt 1000 miles away may be more a curiosity than a piece of hard news.Stu (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Did you feel it?" is important to a lot of people that like to watch quakes. It is somewhat "traditional" (for lack of a better word) to know how far it was felt. Incidently, one USGS report said that it was felt in Tampa, FL. Gandydancer (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest splitting the reactions section into a seperate article. I think as the article's content grows splitting this section into its own article would make this article more navigatable. See Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks for a similar example of a reactions section splitting off to form a seperate article. Burningview ✉ 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would appear too early for a split at the moment. Compare the size of Mumbai articles to the size of this one. A split is possible, but some time later. --Tone17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure why we would only include a number for Americans who want to inquire about loved ones. People in many countries have friends and family in Haiti. If a list of numbers was aggregated somewhere it would probably be appropriate to put that in the external links section—even links to info pages that are country specific would probably be okay, but I don't think these would belong in the article text. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to create a stir here, but I think this section is quite tasteless as it stands for a couple of related reasons: 1) It breaks casualties down by nation of origin (complete with flags!) which just seems unnecessary at this point; 2) In so doing, it gives far more attention to non-Haitian deaths, even though 99% of the people who died are undoubtedly Haitian. Currently we mention two Haitian people who were killed in the quake. Do we seriously believe it's important to mention that the Taiwan ambassador to Haiti "suffered broken bones and was taken to a hospital" when we're likely looking at 100,000+ deaths here? I think this section is completely embarrassing and plan to basically scrap it (I'd reduce mentions of foreign casualties to one sentence for the time being) in the near future unless someone explains why we give such undue weight to the deaths of non-Haitians. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Casualties are casualties, and a breakdown by nation is customary in articles about major disasters. I concur that the Taiwanese ambassador breaking several bones is not worthy of a mention here. In the future, as more details become available, 'Foreign deaths' should become a subsection, with the main 'Casualties' section focusing on the disastrous loss of live throughout the country. As of now, however, it's easier to obtain information on foreign victims, until major news organizations and governments inform us of the casualties among locals.Missionary (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course casualties are casualties, but it's completely disproportionate to focus almost solely on non-Haitian casualties simply because there is more reporting about them, and I would not blame a Haitian person if they were rather severely offended by that section. Until we get more information about casualties (which could be awhile) I think it's in extremely bad taste (not to mention not NPOV) to highlight the deaths, injuries, or disappearances of a relatively small number of people from wealthier countries with more powerful media voices. We should mention those in just a sentence of two for now and get rid of the garish display of flags. Obviously a full sub-section on foreign casualties can come into being once we know more and the article expands. I'll remove the Taiwan ambassador right now, but I still think what we have is severely unbalanced and easily avoidable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are likely more foriegn casualties than listed here, but I think the point of this section as it stands is to offer info on known casualties, I don't think that by listing foriegn casualties we minimize in any way the devistating loss of Haitian life, and I am sure this will be expounded on significantly as news becomes available. I do think that in future, once more details are available, that 'Foreign casualties' should indeed become a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbells1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'd better edit things that can not be changed. Missing people may be rescued. It's nonsense to strech this list of casualties up to God knows where. We need to change this list into a text to avoid so many flags everywhere. By the way, there are many "casualties" which have no reference listed ! We could remove 'em. Krenakarore (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed everything that was unsourced and most everything that referred to people (certainly specific ones) who were "missing." Both of these type of additions should be removed pretty vigorously since we don't need to participate in the propagation of rumor. The section is much thinner now, but it will be quickly populated again and we need to think of a better way to handle this. It might actually be advisable to create a splitoff article right now to drain away some of these edits from the main article. Something akin to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (though the title would need to be somewhat different since this disaster was basically localized to Haiti) might be helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The estimated death toll will depend on the exposed population, about 4 million, the building collapse rate, looks to be about 30% and the collapse rate to the fatality rate about 10% is a good guess in the epicentral area. The people in the US gov planning the response need this data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macneacail (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
don't get what you mean: the 10% of the 4 million figure or the 10% of the 30% collapse rate ? and how the collapse rate relate to the population ? Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he means 4,000,000 X .3 X .1 = 120,000 estimated "fatalities," with many more "casualties." I am not sure, however; everyone is waiting for more substantive information about the scope of this disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.72.139 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree, yesterday it was so distastefull today i didn't even take the pain of looking at it, 2 named haitians and a nobel price laureate, as if i even want to know that when there are 1000s people dead.24.132.171.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Another thing, the Haitian government has stated that it has buried 100,000 people. This should remove the Red Cross estimate of 45-50k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.61.58 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
additional unverified
I have been listening to CTV News Channel about their Haiti earthquake coverage and they mentioned a couple points that I could not source on the Internet. I trust what they are saying is true, despite no website source. Two points they have made are that fraud telemarketers have been calling people to extort money from people and also a report of a missing former Member of Parliament whose name I cannot find. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Airlines and Delta Air Lines have cancelled its flights to Haiti. JetBlue is allowing passengers traveling to Puerto Plata, Santo Domingo, or Santiago in the Dominican Republic whose travels are affected by the quake to rebook at no charge.[5] Krenakarore (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pat Robertson: 18th Century Satanism Caused Haiti's Earthquake
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please consider adding the following somewhere:
Televangelist Pat Robertson referenced the Haitian Revolution's vodou origins as the explanation for the 2010 Haiti earthquake, when he told viewers of his Christian Broadcasting Network, "[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, they were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil, they said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the Prince, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor." http://www.salon.com/news/haiti/index.html?story=/news/2010/01/13/haiti_robertson Salon.com - 'Robertson: Haiti had "pact with devil"' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterJayEm (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third that, for now at least, though it may be worth discussing on Robertson's article talk page. Speaking of thirds, no doubt Haitians would be fascinated to hear Robertson's little history lesson, wherein Haiti achieved its independence from "Napoleon the third and whatever", presumably sometime in the 1850s when Faustin I was around. It's weird that the "swore a pact to the devil" aspect of the comment has some competition for the dumbest part of the statement, though certainly no competition when it comes to utter disregard for basic humanity. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also strikes me the ignorance of some prominent religious figures when it comes to other religions. Sure, during that period they believed in some unusual things like, but Haitian Vodou is based on West African relgions and Catholicism. Grsz1121:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Catholicism itself (NOT Vodou) is the dominant religion in Haiti (followed by some 80% of the population). So Robertson's comment only makes sense if we assume that he believes Catholicism is demonic (which he may very well believe, since Jack Chick and certain other fundamentalists believe just that). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About hatemongering, I should warn that the obvious URL exploitable by a certain questionable individual seems to be not registered, and grabbable ? If someone has some spare buck can do a favour to the entire Net, registering the URL, taking it link away from this questionable individual (it's the only cybersquatting everyone applaud, and I suspect I have sayed enough...) Best regards from Italy, and apologies for the abuse of WP resources, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's a really good question, and quite frankly we might have to scrap that entire section if we cannot come up with a firm criteria. A lot of groups are going to put out appeals for money to help relief efforts in Haiti, and there's no way we can put them all here (practically every major religious denomination on earth could be included, I would have to imagine). One possibility would be to limit the list to groups with an actual physical presence in Haiti (e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières) but that's rather arbitrary. The potential for the section to become a way to advertise appeals from every possible concerned group (and, more problematically, the inevitable con artists and organizations who will look to make a buck off of human misery and the good will of others) might make a "donations sought" section more trouble than it's worth, even though I see the obvious utility. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good criterion which obviously rules in SOS Children [6] Oxfam [7] and is fairly quick to check for others. Otherwise I guess we might have to spin a separate page for a long list. --BozMotalk21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was raised before. It is very problematic to include a list of donation sites and manage to be neutral and to prevent scams. The best option in my opinion would be to link a third party site listing all different organizations. Ideally, the Haitian government would set up such a page. In that case, we have only one link that is reliable and lists all. Does anything like that exist? --Tone21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list should come out, and quickly. We have no basis for knowing if it is complete. There may well be more deserving local charities and such a list, which may give the impression of being authoritative, could divert funds from them. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what was the practice before, such as with the tsunami in 2004 and earthquakes in Kashmir and China... Maybe best to ask at one of the mostly read sites? I'll ask at WP:AN. --Tone22:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the tsunami, a separate article was created for donations. As I recall, it was protected from editing. We should create a separate article and allow only administrators to edit it. There are many reputable charities that should be mentioned. Charities can be added to the talk page and an administrator can check for reputability. I will be adding a news link that warns about scams. --T1980 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just repeating myself, since this seems to be where the discussion is happening:"I don't know the precedents or policy details, but I'm say when you can do good, don't worry about the rules. Put in a factual context if you like: . Numerous aid organizations have set up websites in response to the earthquake including X Y and Z.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally while I don't feel that strongly about it, I don't think such an article, or anything in this article, is a good idea. People have already raised the issue of choosing charities, potential bias and risk of scams in choosing links. I would also note the issue of different charities in different countries. Even if it's the same charity, people may often wish to donate to the local chapter for ease of donation, tax deductability etc and it may not even be possible to donate to a foreign charity. Some charities may have sites that are able to direct people to the appropriate local chapter or site, others may not. For example the UNICEF site aboveis the US site. If I wanted to donate to UNICEF, I would likely use [8] as with most Kiwis, do we really want to link to 200+ country sites (if there are really that many). Okay looking further it turns out UNICEF does have an international donation site [9] so that isn't a good example but I think it illustrates the point. I'm not sure what happend with the Boxing Day Earthquake/Tsunami but I'm not sure if that's a good example. Wikipedia has moved on a lot in those 5+ years. And I wouldn't regard that as a good example. About 2 years ago (haven't looked recently), I came across a lot of the articles on the tsunami which made it sound like the tsunami just happened recently, people were still urgently needing donations etc, there were many people unaccounted for (which was still likely true, but not in the way the article was worded). In that case we had the issue of the tsunami affecting many countries so there were a lot of articles on the different countries which was part of the problem but it remains an example of stuff we don't want to repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't let the difficulty of a task paralyze us from doing our best effort. There are difficulties, they can be overcome.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on wikipedia's guidelines, but tracking a list of "approved" donation websites in this article is overreaching. Wikipedia is a solid part of the internet and there is a lot of great information here, but it is only one part of the internet. Wikipedia isn't a one-stop shop for everything. People can come to this site, realize the scope of the tragedy, and then externally decide on how to make a donation. That information is out there. There are a host of search engines that can be used to find this kind of information. Those same search engines were probably what led them here in the first place. Having a list of "approved charitable organizations" is a dangerous precident to set, especially if such a list is be composed under such short notice. Agentchuck (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's a bit early for this discussion, but I fear that this page will grow quite a bit. Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 14 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead. Though, some manual archiving will probably be needed before bot starts working in 2 weeks. --Tone22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is only at 30k right now thought it could grow at a rapid pace. I'd say start with two weeks or ten days and if the pages gets too large set it at one week, then even less if necessary. But regardless setting up the page for archiving is a good idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About half of this article is flag icons. Okay not half but a lot. Is there a reason this is desirable? Do we really want an article on a horrifying tragedy in Haiti to be covered with a bunch of flag icons from around the world? Is this standard practice for these kind of articles?
The problem beyond just the flags is that about half the article text (for real this time) is devoted to what other countries said about the tragedy and not the tragedy itself. What the other countries say and offer in the way of help is extremely predictable (if no doubt appreciated), but we seem to be on a path where we'll have a statement from the president or foreign minister of every nation in the UN eventually. Is there a way to get this under control by changing the format of this section? I'm wondering if editors who have worked on these "unfolding disaster" articles before have any wisdom to offer here in terms of preventing them from becoming an endless list of responses/reactions. It's completely insane that we only have one paragraph (in the "aftermath" section) on what actually happened to Haiti and Haitians and five times that much on things like "Schools help donate with bake sales, and fundraisers" and "A team of 23 rescue workers and two specially trained dogs will be sent." Obviously a lot of people will make drive-by edits and want to make sure that their nation's efforts to help are recognized (which is perfectly understandable) but we need to rein that in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will change very quickly. We could move all those "funding results" listed in "International response" to a new "Financial aid" section, better dividing the article. Let's go for it ! Krenakarore (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the majority of reports so far. Communications from in Haiti are limited, we have more of what is being said about it. Flags are an acceptable way of doing this, as they have been in the past, and are much more desirable then a bunch of tiny sections. It's only been 24 hours, and it would be counterproductive to heavily alter it right now. Grsz1100:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though it just seems to me that we could still include a lot of replies in one section without the flag icons, and I think a lot of readers will look at those things as somewhat bizarre (or maybe it's just me). And some sort of "funding" or "aid" section will definitely make sense, but I really hope we can keep flags out of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'd better not color the article up with so many different flags (they will remain there in the previous section). Here:『The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) is providing $200,000 (£122,000) in immediate emergency aid which can be used to provide food, potable water, medicines and temporary shelter.』BBC. Then we could include all the info listed in "International response" totalling the fund, together with the countries which have already stated the release of this money. We could list them and use a {multicol} to split them in two columns. This "Warnings about phony charities" could follow right below. This new section would be quickly expanded with other reports. Krenakarore (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what I don't like about the current flag usage. What do flags indicate? Do flags represent the governments of countries, or the people of those countries? Should I be expecting to see donations and help provided by people generously and voluntarily, or the actions of leaders eager to express their status in world affairs? – RVJ (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I tend to disagree, while I have no desire to downplay the plight of the Haitian Republic and its people, I think there is genuine interest in what other countries are doing in response. This is owing to a number of reasons: 1) Even CNN has covered the geopolitical significance of aid from the Dominican Republic given the long history of distrust and limited cooperation between the DR and Haiti. 2) The U.S. response is important because this is a humanitarian crisis in what many international relations scholars would call its "backyard," or "sphere of influence." 3) The response from France is important because Haiti used to be a French colony. I could go on and on with specific examples but more generally, these bits of information matter because we are in a globalized world and Haitian expatriates live in many of the countries that are currently providing aid. However, if the consensus is to move these entries into a separate article linked to this one, I am not against that either. Just speaking for myself, I wanted to know what other countries were doing and I was happy to find that information on wikipedia. Rafajs77 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well actually yes, the usual article of a current event is mutilated that way, usually with proud expressions of condolences of non affected bobo's elsewhere.you might as well include the line: standard rhetorics of sorrow have been expressed by all trade partners that left them to poor to fence for themselves.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contradiction?
It says, "Haitian president Preval later confirmed that Annabi died in the earthquake. Annabi was meeting with a Chinese delegation at the time of the disaster." Was he there or not? This part of the article doesn't make sense.Abce2 (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually makes sense; albeit, at seems, the entire UN civilian command chain is practically destroyed (and the UN military chain seriously disrupted,also, for what I grok...) what was in course inside the destroyed (civilian) command centre can be known to officials & officier outside of it (external security, drivers of chinese delegation, etc.) The real issue now is the total disruption, if not destruction of every conceivable chain of command and control in Haiti.... Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm saying that the article says that he died, and right below it it says he wasn't even there. He can't be in two places at once, let alone dead and alive at the same time.Abce2 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No he was meeting a Chinese delegation in Haiti. What happened to the members of this delegation, I'm not sure, very likely they perished too. It's possible they are part of the 8 Chinese peacekeepers reported killed but I don't believe so Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make an edit without getting a (sometimes multiple) edit conflicts. Sorry, just expressing my frustration. Grsz1104:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the way it goes on current events article...gotta be quick. One way to avoid this is to limit your edits to a small sub-section as opposed to hitting "edit" on the entire page, where you know multiple people will be working. Rafajs77 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Death Toll
People are trying to plan for event. There are about 6 people in the world who can estimate a death toll based on scant information. If Wikipedia is not the place to get it out then so be it, but the likely toll will be 250,000.
Good luck.
John Nichols
article says: " with as many as 100,000 deaths likely, according to the prime minister."
my bet is these figures will remain (close to) future official statements, rightfully so or not. personally i guess it actually happens to be on the higher side , else they wouldn't have hesitated the reporting so long.24.132.171.225 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those confused by the above, I believe the OP is suggesting "2010 Haitian Earthquake" would be better then "2010 Haiti Earthquake". If you're like me you may miss the 'Haitian' bit and think the OP is saying "2010 Haiti Earthquake" is better then "Haiti Earthquake" even though the article is and has been 2010 for a long time (since the beginning?) Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually in the lower right corner was the link to the copyright guidelines, whose, as I understand (i'm not a lawyer...) basically permit the reproduction on WP as a non-commercial site, perhaps the unhappy wording of the link don't help much.... HTH, and best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need photos from every single country who gives aid; we have some right now under a free license and it will fail our policies. However, if you have an article about Canada's involvement with Haiti, you could use that image at that article. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I doubt that. It's resonable to expect a free image could be created to replace that since the aide efforts are still ongoing. Even more so since it's a widescale multinational effort, so it's easily possible that e.g. there could be a US-gov (i.e. PD) or Brazilian national media agency (who I believe release their images under some CC license) image of Canadian relief supplies. I.E. the image is not irreplacable. It's also questionable whether that image is essential to illustrate the subject. How much will it improve my understanding of Canada's involvement in Haiti in a way that can't be done via text? Not much I expect, it's a fairly generic looking image. So it fails the NFCC criteria on two counts... Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the question. What is the rationale for the removal of the estimate, aside that no one really can make a solid estimate (whose I suspect has a certain importance, because of the rather peculiar local superstitions, whose, in the light of the collapse of the civil and ecclesiastical organization, can quickly led to widespread disorder, to put mildly. Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 500,000 as it's now out of date. It was an immediate guess by an individual, whereas the Red Cross have now made a educated assessment after a period of time of 45-50,000. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed. That would make this page a little bit "orphan" as everybody else would start editing the new page about the International response. Let's make this page a bit more "navigational" ! Krenakarore (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commander in Chief is very United States - centric language. Canada doesn't use the CinC term. The GG is the Queen's representative in the Queen's absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.41.120 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an actual Canadian perspective, I can tell you that it would be highly unusual to refer to our Governor General as the Canadian Commander-in-Chief. The Governor General in Canada doesn't have the same authorities as the American President in terms of being able to order our armed forces to do anything. That powers rests with the Canadian Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I post at a site that monitors world-wide disasters (mostly medical) and they are stunned with the fast and accurate job that Wikipedia has done with this earthquake. So am I - it's pretty amazing! Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets all stand in a big circle and pat each other on the back! Or can we give ourselves a barnstar? Just kidding! that's nice actually. Can we have the sites URL? I'd like to take look! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have enough pictures now that we can figure out a good one to go into the info box, in part in order to get the earthquake template to stop stop adding the category about the article needing a picture. :) The best one that I see in the article itself is IMHO File:Haiti earthquake damage overhead.jpg. Does anyone have any other candidates for a lead image? - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an emblematic image of the destruction should top the article. Right now, that's an image of the collapsed national palace, which Wikipedia or Commons does not seem to have. I think it will be forthcoming once Flickr accounts start showing up with them from aid workers and such. As for a temporary replacement, whichever image represents the destruction of the capital should go there. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've added the overhead image to the info box for now. I agree that an image of the destruction of a specific iconic building, like the national palace or the cathedral, would be the best for the spot. When such an image becomes available to us, please replace the current one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should start to form context for the rebuilding and political/economic issues in Haiti. For a recent event, editors who add information to this article should peek in at 2008 Sichuan earthquake. There are already international political issues as CNN reported that the first country to assist was the Dominican Republic, which has eased tensions between the two countries. A parallel with the "tofu dregs buildings" in China is the same lax construction standards in Haiti due to its significant poverty issues. Plus, in the second story, a guy named Hamburger is quoted. Surely that is some kind of value... --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research should be removed - Estimated population living in hardest hit areas section
This section and the table appears to be original research and doesn't cite any sources, just states which sources the data was derived from, with no indication that anyone other than the author has done the derivation. --86.189.13.123 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a well-cited paragraph to this section, not knowing where else it should go. The table...I don't know what to think of it. Does the article really need a breakdown of population like this, even if it is well-cited? --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lede: Aftershocks
The lede references the USGS when referring to aftershocks in the area, but this page lists notable quakes in the last 7 days, and thus will be obsolete in a week. Is there something more permanent we can use? Redoubts (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to create subpages on aftermath and casualties
PROPOSAL I propose to split the “Casualties” section from the “Aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake” and then create separate sub articles for both the [[Aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake” and “Casualties” sections. I think the comparison of this article with the 2008 Mumbai attacks article is a good one (see Talk:2010_Haiti_earthquake#Suggestion_for_a_split) . Each section in the Mumbai attacks article has its own separate article and the 2010 Haitian earthquake is arguably a much more substantial event than the Mumbai attacks in terms of devastation and loss of life. Creating a separate casualties page would also address the concerns of Bigtimepeace (see Talk:2010_Haiti_earthquake#Casualties_section that far too much weight is being given to foreign casualties. An article on casualties should be overwhelmingly about Haitians. I think a good example of how the Haitian section could be written is the casualties section in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake article .For example, the damage done to schools, hospitals and governmental buildings destroyed could be listed. I also think for a few reasons that over the next few weeks there will be a lot more information available on individuals killed on the Haitian quake than the Sichuan quake . First, Port-au-Prince is the capital and cultural center of Haiti and many of casualties will be political and cultural figures, while the Sichuan earthquake took place in a remote area of China. Second, the media, both foreign and domestic, has much greater freedom to report on quake than was the case in the Sichuan quake. And finally, not many Wikipedia editors can read Chinese, but many more can read French, English and Spanish, which are the primary sources for information about the Haitian quake. But I also think that there is a place for foreign casualties listed by nationality (along with flags). There was a large international presence in Haiti before the quake due to rebuilding efforts after the 2008 hurricane disaster in Haiti. The mention of foreign casualties in the main article can be condensed into a few sentences, but then the full extent of foreign casualties should be addressed in the sub article. David Straub (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a summary style is used, this article is kept comprehensive, and there is enough information to warrant subpages, then I don't see a problem doing this. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David, I have a feeling we might have to wait awhile for firm info. The situation is obviously incredibly chaotic, and I have a feeling the focus will be on saving lives/preventing further death from disease, dehydration, lack of medical care, etc. as opposed to getting reliable information about casualties, at least for the next few days. We might have to settle for giving various estimates for the time being, in addition to mentioning whatever specific examples are discussed in the press (a collapsed building that led to many casualties, for example). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a need to split the "quake event" from the "aftermath event" which seems plausible and advisable, although I see no reason to split the Casualties section from the Aftermath one. They're basically the same for the title aftermath explains it all. The sooner the better ! Krenakarore (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced, and brief, mention that this is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere is directly pertinent to their ability to cope with the emergency and provides valuable background as to why they are having difficulty coping. In my view it should remain though I have moved it to Background from the lead. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a significant aspect of the destruction in Haiti and the government's capability to respond to this disaster. I don't know why it was removed, and I think it should remain in the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe listing non-notable individuals killed is particularly useful or appropriate, as it seems to give those individuals much more weight than the thousands upon thousands of Haitians that will be determined killed. Notable individuals are of course worthy, like the Brazilian doctor and perhaps the Canadian professor, but other individuals are not. Perhaps when we have more definitive information, we can say X Canadians were killed, but that is for later. Grsz1117:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the article contains pretty much every single scrap of sourced information that we can pull together. If we had a list of Hatian casualties, I'm sure those numbers would be included. However, as seen in many news sources, the foreigner casualties are a big deal, so for now I think we'll leave them in. -Zeus-u|c18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and per WP:WEIGHT, which you linked to: first sentence:
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Grsz, I disagree, but not completely. I don't think that there is any problem with providing the names and maybe the organization or place of origin of foreign casualties, but as long as there is only a very small number. For example, I saw a news article confirming a New Zealander had perished in the quake. If there is only a few casualties for a country such as New Zealand, then naming them adds more substance to the article. After all, if their death wasn't "notable" then maybe we should not even be listing nationalities or providing numbers. It think that would be better than a chart that says "Casualties" and then provides a list "Haiti, 140,378; America 378, Canada 71." That's really just reducing people to numbers. For nationalities that suffered a large number of casualties it is obviously not possible to list a large number of names. Besides, I think it's just as likely that other websites in cyberspace will do a better job at memorializing the thoses who perished and these sites can then be linked in the citations section.
Do we really need to have it with its present content? It seems very editorial in nature, rather than presenting factual information (virtually all of what's presented is impossible to cite). --98.193.140.235 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- new to posting or talking on Wiki and want to comment on the relief efforts discussed in this article that Wycleff has given over the years. There are external links people can visit to find out how to help and support the people devasted by the recent earthquake in Haiti. Recommend those who want to support and give aid to do so through the work and support of Wycleff.
I kind of agree, but do not know where to find more information about it, or even what to call it. Port-au-Prince Port? Port of Port-au-Prince? --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Port-au-Prince seaport would serve until a better tile comes around, since it's a descriptive title (hence lowercase)... as for info, the various maritime organizations should have some, and the international longshoremen's union as well... Perhaps the colonial records in France... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of maps, the OpenStreetMap coverage of the earthquake hit cities has progress dramatically in the past 48 hours. All open licensed. I've uploaded Image:Port-Au-Prince and Carrefour map.png
Browse the map. This is the 'live' map with improvements still being made, including pinpointing building damage and refugee camps visible using post-quake GeoEye and DigitalGlobe aerial imagery (which OpenStreetMap has been given special permission to use).
Get in touch with me or anyone else in the OpenStreetMap community if you have questions or ideas for working the map data. And feel free to use the images on wikipedia! (open licensed!) I was suggesting this over on wikinews too
Somebody took out all mention of Topos de Tlatelolco in the 14 January section of the article. While I expected it to be modified, I didnt expect it to disappear completely. This is an all-volunteer group from Mexico trained especially for rescue and recovery from collapsed buildings and have been involved with disasters in 22 countries. Deserves a mention.... I cant find how the whole thing disappears since early today, however.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TSR.ch in an article [11] reported that『...l'université de l'Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF) ont été également été détruits.』I checked the AUF website and found that they have an institute called "L'Institut de la Francophonie pour la Gestion dans la Caraïbe (IFGCar)", and it is also called『L'Institut Aimé Cessaire』[12]. The addresses of the Caribbean regional office of AUF and IFGCar are the same, and from this article [13] it is reported that the Institut Aimé Césaire was damaged.
Despite of the information above, I decided to change the "Caribbean regional office of AUF" in the list of damaged buildings in the main article to "Institute Aimé Césaire", for this information is more direct and relies less on inference. Qrfqr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster article template?
Is there value in developing a template for future disaster articles to assist with managing the development of an article from one day to the next? Something like a FAQ template on the talk page that will clarify issues and set rules such as:
This article is about a disaster that has recently occurred. Editors contributing to this article should
Include facts that discuss the event dispassionately and reflect accurate reporting.
Remove any claims or statements that are not cited to a reliable source.
Patrol external links, and any remove any questionable links to sites that may be spam or false aid organizations as soon as possible. Move all contact information to aid organizations to external links.
Maintain consistent spelling and grammar and a professional level of writing throughout the article
Maintain consistent and full citations that include authors if any are named, title, URL or page number, publication, publication date, and retrieval date if the source is online.
Use estimates of casualties from the highest authorities, and provide a range in the case of conflicting reports or initial estimates.
Welcome new users and anonymous IPs who edit the article, even if they vandalize. Ask for administrative action in blocking problematic users before asking for article protection.
Intended to be kept on the article talk page for one or two weeks. I'm not so great with templates and stuff, otherwise I'd make one to make it look official. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent idea, and what you have above seems to cover the key points. The bit about welcoming new editors is especially important I think, as these sort of "big event" articles tend to attract a lot of new folks which is good but will sometimes lead to frustration from more experienced editors. The bad news is that I know about as much about templates as I do about calculus (hint: not much) and have never created or maintained one before, so I'm not sure I can be much help in setting it up initially. Is there the equivalent of a Bat-signal for template experts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 'checking for dead links', I'd add a step about archiving external links in webcitation.org and using their archive when links go dead. --Gwern (contribs) 17:00 17 January 2010 (GMT)
Why couldn't they just airdrop supplies and have soldiers trained in medicine and rescue operations just parachute in? Would that be so difficult when they see that supplies will not get to those trapped in time?--RossF18 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air dropping aid does not guarantee that food and other relief supplies will reach the people most in need. In many cases it is the strongest and fittest who get to the aid first, and not the sick or injured who most need help and assistance. In a natural disaster such as Cyclone Nargis or conflict like Darfur it?s not only food that is needed but also sophisticated equipment such as clean water and sanitation systems weighing tons as well as highly skilled staff to operate them, all of which cannot be dropped from the sky. If there isn't an aid operation on the ground to distribute the aid, the air drops can exacerbate any tense relations within communities with only the fittest and fastest benefiting.
Yeah, the article should mention it somewhere. As far as relief, perhaps airdroping supplies might cause problems, but what about doctors. On the news, they keep saying that there aren't enough doctors on the ground and not enough medicine with people dying of just broken bones (bleeding out) - something that could be preventable if there was just a doctor on the ground. Don't tell me that there are not military doctors who can't parachute in near those parks with all the dying. Or, with those helicopters in the bay, just have them swing rope down. You're military - you're supposed to be trained to do battle field medicine. Oh, well. Guess appearances are what matter. --RossF18 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what the article is supposed to mention. That people should be doing something? That is not within the scope of what an encyclopedia article is for. --Moni3 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article is quite good for such a hot topic. I'm glad to see such strong organization. Moni, as long as there is basic documentation for relief efforts that's fine for now. ceranthor23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What and land on the dying people? And what about the supplies doctors need? Medical equipment and medicine? Are you going to drop it and risk it breaking, killing someone, being lost, being stolen (could be a particularly bad thing which scapels and the link) or just get the doctor to be a McGyver? Not to mention, you great limit the supply of doctors if your looking for those capable of parachuting. Sure there are obviously some military doctors who can, but even many military doctors can't and they are in short supply. You seem to be forgetting that battle field medicine usually involves perhaps a few casulties not thousands and thousands and dropping into a battlefield which may be full of hostiles but on the whole is still going to be rather empty, not full of injured, dying or healthy but desperate & fairly lawless civilians who have no where to go and are stuck in certain areas because their homes have been destroyed in an earthquake. If you're going to be of any use, you need to set up a proper field hospital, with supplies etc and probably even security and some people to manage the patients. Indeed even most doctors in battlefield situation will usually only try to stabilise the patient until they can be airlifted or otherwise recovered to a field hospital or even a real hospital. You don't have rambo-McGyver doctors dropping in and saving everyone with their bare hands. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should mention the reasons for why airdrops are not being considered or if considered, quickly discouraged, not that someone should be doing something - namely the reasons stated above, crowd control, looting possibility, etc.--RossF18 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should. This is a specific article about the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The simple fact is, that most people recognise there are reasons what you've suggested in infeasible for such a mass scale effort. And none of it is particularly unique to this disaster. Perhaps some wikipedia article on disaster management should discuss such things, but probably not this article on this specific disaster since it's only a minor point and isn't so far even seemingly covered in any references Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this. The article needs to cover what has been done. I also altered some other information about military ships that have the capacity to do something or plan to do something. This does not say what has been accomplished, and is unnecessary filler. Similarly, a tactic considered briefly by the military but not employed does not report what has been done. Unless there is reliable coverage where a significant group of people urging something to be done from leaders, these tactics do not report solid information. The article should relay only what has been accomplished. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If there is coverage of any aspect of the earthquake in reliable sources, it could potentially be included. If discussion of the pros and cons of airdrops becomes notable, then we can include information about that discussion here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree also, as a 2,000 man Marine deployment by ship from North Carolina (getting there in a couple of days) has helicopters and is considering the feasibility of air drops. Plus the analysis of the feasibility is enlightening regarding aid provision in such situations. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source presented in the edit that I removed reflected that the US military dismissed the idea of drops for safety and logistical reasons. The paragraph was written to say that there were legitimate suggestions to do this, but the source did not reflect that, just that the idea was considered briefly and dismissed. I agree that if a solid source reports that groups, people, the military, relief workers, or whoever is actually entertaining this, then it should be included, but I do not think the article should take begin including what can be done, should be done, or even what has been dismissed as ineffective and potentially harmful. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. How about a sentence or clause somewhere in the Elements of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division ... paragraph to say briefly that air drops were ruled out early for safety reasons? --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw an interview on TV (hence no source here) with marine commander deployed there by sea that his amphibious marine unit may use airdrops and paratroopers later, as that is their specialty. He ruled out immediate air drops only. —mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Miami Herald is doing that thing with the headlines without explaining anything in text, but they are showing an images of air drops. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now seeing things being air-dropped on CNN. Namely, helicopters landing in fields and dropping supplies with people rushing towards and grabbing supplies. Comments were made regarding why airdrops are risky in terms of only the strong being able to get supplies and the weak being left out. Of course, they don't consider that now is not the time to think of equal distribution when no one has anything. Plus, those comments seem not to consider that the strong usually have family members who are not. But, yes, I'm beginning to see water and meals being air-dropped in. As far as earlier comments regarding medical supplies - no one was suggesting dropping scaples down on people's heads. Also, yes, there are not many doctors who can parachutte in. But given that (1) there are currently almost 0 doctors on the ground and (2) people are dying of rather manageable injuries for doctors in the field like broken bones, having doctors parachutte in with basic supplies in their packs (like bandages, pain medicine, and splints) is not so outrageous to garner such riducle. --RossF18 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16 January
After 72 hours, rescue is probably going to be extremely unlikely. Should we start a new section when news starts to be reported from January 16 titled Recovery and aid? --Moni3 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for tomorrow, when a 16 January section would go under the Rescue subheading. It will no longer be a rescue operation. How much longer were you anticipating? --Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised by things relief workers can do, trust me. I was thinking tomorrow night/ Sorry, 16 January was UTC Jan 16 for me right then. :( ceranthor01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to wait a week, that way you can be reasonably sure that most people recovered will be dead, there will be almost no miracle rescues then. Remember the Boxing Day Tsunami, and how longer after it struck that people were still being rescued. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Different country, Different conditons. Sampoong is in Sth Korea, a fairly capable country. This is MASS (10s of Thousands) casualties and collapse of an entire country not one building. Haiti was a basket case before this happened. Infrastructure is apparently GONE. Little to NO heavy lifting equipment. A few people have been, rescued, some die shortly after rescue. Miracles happen, chances poor unfortunately. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However the fact there are so many people affected likely means there's a fair chance some people will still be found. Perhaps not quite 17 days but still for a few days yet Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images and aesthetics
As more images become available, it is inevitable that they will be added to the article. Please ensure that the article adheres to the Manual of Style for images, which can be found here.
Please avoid sandwiching text, especially with images that are purely decorative. There is a sandwiching issue already in the Geology section, but both these images are important for the understanding of the earthquake.
If there is a decision between stacking images on the right, or sandwiching, consider removing an image in a section, or placing them in a gallery at the bottom of the article.
Please make sure all images are in the public domain, and have sourcing, date, and author information on the image pages. --Moni3 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this came up earlier but it might be good to choose and monitor the external links a bit more carefully. I've just removed a link to an obvious scam but given the level of activity on the article, some things like that might slip through. Given the high traffic of Wikipedia, the last thing we want is to inadvertently send readers to such sites. In any case, to all people who have the article watchlisted, please keep an eye out for this! Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That scam link was added only moments before you removed it, so thank you. It is a good idea to patrol the external links regularly, however. --Moni3 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it stood there for only six minutes. But who knows how many readers we got in that interval! These new (somewhat obvious) junk links are easy to catch. I'm more worried about a sneaky modification of existing urls. Pichpich (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article changes so rapidly that I have to keep refreshing it every two minutes, it seems, and then refresh this history to check what was added in between. I hope it goes without saying that it takes efforts from many editors to catch scams, vandalism, false information, and exaggerated claims. We have to work together to do this. Even leaving the article for an hour for the things I have to do today brings edits that have to be reviewed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot edit semiprotected articles, so please fix: The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan has also been deplored to Haiti, along with two dock landing ships." thank you 96.243.205.39 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60E5EC20100115
Haitian authorities have buried 40,000 bodies and believe another 100,000 people probably died in this week's earthquake, a senior official told Reuters on Friday.
I am having difficulty believing the 40,000 number. I'm actually having problems with the 20,000 number reported in the Miami Herald and think it rather sloppy of them to post that as a headline and not quantify how they got that number for over an hour. Even their 20,000 number uses a Haitian government official as the source.
I saw this 40,000 number last night, when the best source I read (New York Times) had mentioned only 9,000 bodies buried. That's a significant jump and the grave mentioned in the news sources I'm reading is 20 miles south of Port-au-Prince. The streets are still mostly impassable and fuel is scarce. I don't see how this is even physically possible right now. CNN has mentioned only one other mass grave with 100 or so bodies. I'm cognizant that the Haitian government source for this 40,000 number is probably stunned and overwhelmed. I really would like to see another source for this, like the Red Cross or someone who was not personally affected by the earthquake. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed on TV that no one knows the number, that it is not clear that anyone is counting the bodies being buried, and that there is not even an attempt to record an identification as the bodies are buried. There was one Haitian Minister whose death estimate was repeated endlessly in the news, although it was clear he had nothing to base it on. I believe that there are no accurate numbers, as there is no means to attain them currently. —mattisse (Talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of victims being sent to Guantanomo Bay
The heading of this photo is misleading. This photo reads: "Victims from Haiti earthquake are unloaded at U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" but it should read, "American victims from Haiti earthquake are unloaded at U.S. Naval Hospital Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," as the U.S. is only airlifting out American civilians and not Haitians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.14.183 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article now has a section entitled "Recovery" which relates that two former US presidents will mobilize to coordinate donation efforts. How is this any different from the "Response" section, which also depicts efforts being undertaken by the international community to recover the country from disaster?
The entire "Recovery" section is redundant and should be scrapped IMO. As conditions in Haiti improve, this section would be useful in describing how the country overcame its current situation. It's still too early for that, however. Missionary (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is minimal now, there is value in building it as news becomes available. The split Response article will cover most of the recovery efforts in more detail, but that does not mean that this one should not summarize what will be happening. Parent articles are often the ones which most readers will go to first. To remove the information when it is prominent in the news is doing a disservice. If the genera consensus by editors who are participating in this article is that this should be removed, I'm ok with it, as I planned to store it in a sandbox, but I expect it will be expanded within 24 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is so obvious that the title had incorrect grammar that there was no need to discuss it. Also, 1997 Iran earthquake is grammatically incorrect and should be moved to 1997 Iranian earthquake. Would you call something "2010 America earthquake" rather than "2010 American earthquake"? If you would, then you are obviously not very proficient in English. :- ) (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be 2010 United States earthquake. Look at List of 21st century earthquakes and you'll see numerous articles titled like this used to be. It's incredibly disruptive to make such an action to such a high traffic article with no discussion whatsoever. Grsz1123:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"United States" does not have an adjective form. The adjective form of "Haiti" is "Haitian." Therefore, "2010 Haiti earthquake" is grammatically incorrect, and keeping the title that way is incredibly disruptive, unless you want to have an encyclopedia that is a joke. :- ) (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the incorrect grammar in this article too the first time I saw it but I didn't really feel like arguing over it. An alternative could be "2010 earthquake in Haiti", "2010 Haitian earthquake" also works. "2010 Haiti earthquake" arguably sounds the best and is the simplest, so I'm assuming that's why it is the standard form. Also the comparison with the United States does not work because "United States" is the formal adjective. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that doing an unnecessary move creates a lot of work resolving redirects. The grammar is debatable, Google gives 14m hits for "Haiti earthquake" and 4m for "Haiti earthquake" so there is no clear-cut issue that needs resolving with a page move. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If redirect isn't broken there is not a problem, that's a horrible reason not to move a page. That being said the current title is probably fine, I don't have a strong opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only now have I realized that the American system is not followed by Britain. I vote for American, since that's where most visitors to this page likely come from. Missionary (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, American spelling and date formatting is followed for American topics. While much of the material in this article deals with US military and government, Haiti as I understand it, follows a European style. --Moni3 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. However, we should adapt different date formatting styles to the convenience of the probable English-speaking reader, not to always follow the style closer to the article's subject. In this case, I believe the overwhelming majority of English-speaking readers will be of American background (as is the case with most articles, except for regional topics like Chav, Maharashtra etc.).Missionary (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of articles are most viewed by people from the United States. The consensus has been to use whatever style was used first or use whatever style is closely related to the topic. This article should use whatever date style Haiti uses. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style mentions "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", which is not the case with Haiti.Missionary (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moni3 is perfectly correct. The nationality of readers is irrelevant; the determining factor is the date format used in Haiti, which is dd/mm/yyyy, the European format. --MalleusFatuorum00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the point was perfectly clear, but obviously not. Nobody will be using "dd mmm yyyy" either. For instance, today's date is 17 January 2010. No ugly comma required. Got it now? --MalleusFatuorum00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"17 January 2010" is what I mean't by "dd mmm yyyy" format. "Ugly commas"? Anyhow, I'm sure we are all on the same page now. HWV258.04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Day, month, year, per Wikipedia standards. No offence intended to US readers, but we have clear-cut guidelines regarding this and we don't change them for perceived convenience. --Ckatzchatspy00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've corrected all dating in the article body, though in references they are still divergent. I'm not American, for the record. Missionary (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an anglophone country, so the format used by Haitians is utterly irrelevant (we also don't write the article in French or the native creole just because they speak it). What matters is the first date format that was used in the article: was it dmy or mdy? Can someone have a look through the history? If it's unclear, how did the article evolve—with predominantly one or the other? The imperative is not to give editors the go-ahead to fight over these matters. Tony(talk)01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree as well. Whether or not Haiti is anglophone is irrelevant. And to compound the issue by using the American "meter" in an article about a francophone country is rather incredible. --MalleusFatuorum01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I'm not happy unless I'm causing chaos, but fwiw, I figure the consistent European-style spellings of metre and organisation will be copy edited in time, with the caveat that I cannot seem to help my American spelling when edits are being made very quickly to the article. The higher priority is verifying that all the changes and updates are accurate. I also agree that something needs to be decided to keep from rapid reverting. If this is a loophole in the MOS, then it should be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give diddly-squat which ones are used, as long as it's consistent. At least one conversion still required (65 km). PS, this is very good work; excellent PR for WP. Tony(talk)02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the folks working on this article have never worked with Tony1, that's the strongest praise I have ever seen from him. Paste that to your barnstar wall. Better yet, get a tattoo... --Moni3 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just use Canadian conventions? It's not European, it's not American, "organization" has a "z" and "metre" is spelled with an "re". 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be quite a few external links, and there's a note warning that it needs cleaning up. But I can't see any that should be removed... what do others think? Can we remove that warning? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove sections "Emergency aid" and "Contacting friends and relatives in Haiti". In an article about the quake, I find further information about the event itself to be fitting there. Not links to donation sites, valuable as they are. Missionary (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template exhorts people to remove links that don't follow guidelines. This is the opposite of what we want. The guidlines don't cover this situation adequately so we want people not to remove links but to discuss on here what links are appropriate. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who put the note warning there? Did they explain why it was placed, or is this a drive-by template issue? Is there any clear policy on what links should not be included, apart from the obvious WP:ELNO rules, for articles following a disaster? If not, that should be clarified, but that does not mean the template should remain while that is done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll place a note at WP:EL talk page to get them to start talking about it, but I think because this article will rapidly change, many of the links are temporary and will be removed in some weeks when the focus of immediate aid and assistance is no longer as intense as it is now. I'm ok with removing the template, and keeping the links sparse. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a section on how the online software community has really come together to aid the response. Three projects in particular are especially noteworthy:
Ushahidi - http://haiti.ushahidi.com - allowing people on the street to send in messages about the situation on the ground
Sahana Disaster Management System - http://haiti.sahanafoundation.org/ - providing a list of 130+ responding agencies, disaster victim identification & situation mapping
While this info should certainly be placed in the split Response article, if this is the first effort of its kind, mention of it should be in this article as well. I saw this story, but am interested in seeing other reliable news about the effort. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magnitude 7.0 is a big earthquake but not a huge one. This one caused unprecedented loss of life merely because of its location: right near the capital of a poor and overpopulated country with nonexistent building code enforcement. There was a 6.5 a few days earlier in the United States which caused only minimal damage. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I believe the earthquake occured in US territorial waters (as recognised by nearly every party) so arguably it did occur in the US even if not on US land Nil Einne (talk)
Technically I believe you are not correct. The quake was almost 25 miles offshore, and territorial waters extend only 12 miles. Incidently, looking at the Haiti map, it seems that that little neck of Haiti is not much more than 50 miles wide and the epicenter was in the middle. Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have looked more closely earlier and specified my terms more clearly. Looking now, I believe it's closer to ~ 35 km (~22 miles) off shore. However you're correct this is outside the 12 nautical mile (i.e. ~22.2 km or ~13.8 mile) territorial water claim of the US. On the other hand, I still believe it did occur within the limits of the US contential shelf claim (and is obviously under the continential shelf) as recognised by nearly every party, so it is still likely within US territory. Also of course also likely within the US contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone although it's perhaps questionable if that's relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Road blocks out of dead bodies
Hi! I'm not a regular here, so I'm not sure what the editing etiquette is.
I came across the reference to 'road blocks out of dead bodies' in the 'Conditions in the Aftermath' section. This seems highly implausible to me. More likely bodies were piled up in one place because they had to be put somewhere. As far as I can see was only reported by one journalist, quoted in the Telegraph article (Shaul Schwarz, a photographer for TIME magazine, said he saw at least two roadblocks formed with bodies of earthquake victims and rocks). Is there any way Wikipedia can verify this? Maybe if the roadblocks were seen by another journo? Otherwise I would remove the sentence.79.239.238.141 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it in The Miami Herald and some other sources. Facts are flying quite fast, and there's no doubt in a month or so, someone will actually check all these to verify that a third of these facts were rumors floating around. I can't explain why Haitians needing help would create road blocks. Some of the weirder and darker aspects to these news stories sound like what was being printed about The Superdome following Hurricane Katrina. --Moni3 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. That's why I became suspicious. I had a search around the net, and I too saw it in several sources, but always in reference to this one journalist. So what is to be done?79.239.238.141 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt there is an element of lawlessness and danger, but this comes in stride with every disaster regardless of where it takes place. I saw an interview with Russel Honore, the general who took charge in New Orleans, who said that when the people affected are poor the response to them is generally more hostile. The breakdown of authority and communications adds to these stories. For the most part on Wikipedia, however, we have to go with what sources say. Unless the facts are simply un-knowable, such as the number of bodies collected and placed in mass graves, we should summarize the bulk of stories and reflect what is being reported by responsible sources until stories are confirmed to be untrue, such as the looting of UN warehouses. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. I have wondered about this as well - just does not seem to fit in with what I have seen to this time. I googled it and was not satisfied with what turned up. I have deleted it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to overturn this, but I read it again in a separate story about Carrefour: In the absence of police authority, groups of residents have barricaded the roads with cadavers and burning tires in an effort to prevent looting. This makes no sense to me at all, either in why they would do it, or how it possibly prevents looting when it seems these people have no cars (motorcycles, yes) and little fuel. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it on CNN as well. But then they also said on CNN that a family that lost their child then had to go to the cemetary with pick and shovel to dig the grave themselves...later I learned that they don't bury their dead in Haiti. Thanks for not reverting it - I'm not usually so bold on an article that I'm not working on, but it seemed like the right thing to do. Gandydancer (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whats with all the love for Wyclef, Cuba, Qatar, and Dom rep in the wikipedia articles on this disaster??? seems disproportionate to their impact or relevance. - 63.239.65.9 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What?! I've counted 34 mentions of "United States", "U.S." and " US " (not the pronoun). And that's not even including numerous references to USS Carl Vinson, USS Bataan, USNS Comfort et cetera. The one entity getting too much attention in this article is the U.S. Missionary (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to mention Isreal and Qatar. Others have helped as much and more. Cuba sent 40 docs and set up 40 field hospitals the next day.Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rescue efforts timeline section
It needs to be split into a new article ASAP. It will pile up with new information in the coming weeks just like the articles on events in Iran and Honduras from last year. I don't want to get into persistent reverts over this, so I'm recommending this on the talk page for posterity. --Toussaint (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For the record here, I've asked Toussaint to write a one or two paragraph summary of the information in the Rescue section with full citations. I notice that edits are still being made to this section in this article, so it is still actively being worked on. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toussaint, please cite this section or I will revert to the previous version. An uncited section is as bad as a blank section. People have worked very diligently to ensure this article is superbly cited. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this section has been messed up. The commitment of the US military is huge, yet those figures have been removed. Now there is a large, unreferenced section. It is ok to mention the many relief organizations that are helping, but largely this is a military effort because only a military can handle the enormous barriers to delivering relief under the conditions in Haiti. After all, Haiti has been under the guard of UN peace keepers since 2004, way before the earthquake, and still there was much violence. Someone questioned why the focus on UN losses and removed mention of them from the article. The UN losses are important because the UN was running the country so their loss leaves a vacuum. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the removal of the cited information. It's as it was. It's probably going to warrant a split soon, so a summary with citations will have to be created by people who have participated in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think talking about Haitians wanting to attend church in their best dresses is trivia and minimizing the massive problems that exist there, as the press in general seems to be doing, trying to make it a "feel good" story. As someone who has written several articles on Haiti before the earthquake and was aware of the massive problems pre-earthquake, I am sorry to see this happen. United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti has been there since 2004 and has not successfully quelled the violence. Read about Cité Soleil. This is a chance for the story of Haiti to be told. —mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the Conditions of the aftermath section, but I have read it on CNN, the New York Times, and The Miami Herald. The best dresses...ok, it can be taken out (I don't think it trivializes suffering but indicates how important faith is that they still try to find their Sunday best to wear), but all three sources addressed how Haitians are dealing with this spiritually. If there is consensus to remove it entirely, then it is removed, but in the future it should be included. There is another side to lawlessness, and we need to find a balance between stories about pockets of looting and vigilante justice and trying to make sense out of chaos through whatever means are traditional among Haitians. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section can also use a paragraph about how medical situations have been handled after the destruction of all major medical facilities. I read on CNN that no general anesthesia is available for amputations and in another source (which I forget now) that vodka was being used as antiseptic. I have no idea how legitimate that is. --Moni3 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the material is selectively taken from a source that says much more which the material in the article selectively ignores. Oh, well. This is an article about what we want to hear, and we don't really want to know about Haiti, just like we did not before the earthquake. We want to hear the good stuff. Haiti before the earthquake was not covered by the news, unless there was a disaster. We want to feel good about ourselves. Oh, well. Carry on with your article! —mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the article, so feel free to to adjust what I have added. Discussing what should go in it is part of making it better, even if others disagree with the information I add. If you're referring to the NYT source about Sunday morning, do you think there is any place in the article to discuss the way Haitians are responding to such massive devastation spiritually? Does neglecting this aspect of the article also censor Haitian culture? On the other side of the coin, news reports are often just as keen to point out the lack of discipline among the poor, as I pointed out a couple sections above, similar to the rampant rumors about what happened in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. As a group of editors, we have to find a balance. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished reading the article (again) - this is Wikipedia at its best! Congrats to all. Mattisse, I think I know how you feel. Today on Meet the Press they lamented, "Poor Haiti, they've had *bad luck* for two hundred years". What BS! The main bad luck they've had is to be screwed over for two hundred years. Also, I bristle every time I hear they are "looting!!". I just wish that every time they said looting, that they'd say in the same sentence that they are starving. OK, as far as the best Sunday clothes part. I liked it. It demonstrates a people with a deep sense of spirit when things could not be worse, at least to me. It is not flowery-feel-good-talk at all...to me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images in Geology section
This section has a very succinct explanation in prose and three images, making it crowded and difficult to read, which is a shame. I was trying yesterday to figure out how to put the captions on the side of File:Haiti USGS body wave moment tensor arrows.svg, like in a table or something, but I'm not good at it and nothing seemed to work.
Personally I don't find "Haiti USGS body wave moment tensor arrows.svg" very enlightening. The fact it needs such a long explanation underneath must say something about its usefulness.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell I just took it out as it broke the section up quite horribly. It might go in Geology of the 2010 Haiti earthquake if that gets made. Here it is in case someone can find a way of pasting it back in without messing up the text:
USGS focal mechanism for the body waves of the earthquake. Dark areas are in compression, light areas in tension. Arrows show left-lateral relative motion along the fault, and the fault plane lies along the transition from dark to light between the two arrows. This motion is due to the movement of the Caribbean Plate (south, bottom) to the east with respect to the North American Plate (north, top).
Why is the destruction of the UN headquarters headlined in this article: I think it does a huge disrespect to the 100,000s of ordinary Haitians killed in this disaster, to pick out the deaths of UN staff members as worthy of special mention in the opening paragraph. Are these lives worth more? This must be removed immediately! Orthorhombic (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to moving the names from the intro to elsewhere, but the destruction of the headquarters has a crucial bearing on the co-ordination of the recovery effort so should remain.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this category be restricted to "victims" (killed, wounded, trapped in rubble). Currently, as it is formulated, it is overly broad, and just about anyone could be categorized into it, like President Clinton, General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, Sanjay Gupta, any politician voicing support for Haiti, any public figure promoting donations to relief funds, etc. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably time to start expanding the lead, but keeping it tame. Everyone with a keyboard or a microphone will have some weird comparison (the 1906 San Francisco earthquake of 2010! in Haiti!), and every natural disaster according to anyone who has ever seen it apparently looks like a war zone (although, oddly, many of the people making these comparisons have never seen a war zone).
The lead should be trim and reflect what has been covered. A new paragraph should discuss the aggravation to the destruction, which is Haiti's poverty leading to cheaply made buildings, the response to the disaster, and the impediments to aid reaching people. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove or provide reference?
This quote is not supported by the reference:
Elisabeth Byrs of the UN called it the worst disaster the United Nations has experienced because the organizational structures of the UN in Haiti and the Haitian government were destroyed.[16]
"Slow distribution of resources and the absence of any central authority in the days after the earthquake resulted in violence..."
How can we say for certain that a lack of a central authority leads to violence? Plenty of central authorities around the world become involved in violence.
It goes on to say:
"At least one looter was killed as Haitian police fired upon hundreds,"
... so the police are in fact contributing to violence themselves.
A replacement phrase might be, "Loss of social cohesion and general insecurity following the earthquake resulted in violence..."
But actually the whole aspect of social re-organisation following the disaster is quite interesting. The article goes on to say that women have been seen marching through the streets singing; so that is a spontaneous event which is quite independent of central authority which is providing a sense of social cohesion amongst the survivors.
I'm not saying that a lack of central authority has not led to violence, but that the statement is not a factual one; it is speculation. If we could say "media reports suggest that a lack of a central authority has resulted in violence" I would be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.80.116 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the source: Both impulses — the riotous theft and the vigilante response — were borne of desperation, the lack of food and water as well as the absence of law and order. Given the conditions, it was all the more remarkable that a spirit of cooperation and fortitude prevailed nearly everywhere else, as people joined together to carry corpses, erect shelters and share what food they could find.
I disagree with the social cohesion because generally the violence is sporadic. According to most reports they are calm and socially cohesive, as evidenced by the paragraph about Haitians organizing themselves. "General insecurity" is too vague. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources get updated and some information gets altered. This was apparently altered and removed. I added it initially, but since I'm not sure I could find it elsewhere, I removed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or can we give ourselves a barnstar? 
Can we have the sites URL? I'd like to take look! 
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
