 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 17, 2010, February 17, 2012, February 17, 2016, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2019, and February 17, 2022. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
I redid the causes section and re-titled it as "Possible Causes" as most of the theories proposed were just that, theories. --Ykentwegetalong
Latest Figures are 3000 dead -- Do we have verifiable sources for this? Reuters and CNN both mention only 1,800 dead. --Ykentwegetalong
Was it a 2.3 or a 2.6 earthquake? There appears to be a conflict.
"Poverty striken countries also pitched in by lending $1 with a fixed interest rate of 150%p.a." Deleted this sentence, feel free to restore it if you feel that it makes any sense. BTW there was also a spelling error in this, i think it's vandalism but couldn't quickly locate the source (not in the few latest edits or vandalism restores). --Regenspaziergang !? 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see explanation to how mining can be one of the possible causes (due to the obvious fact that nothing is ever caused by a SINGLE factor but rather MULTIPLE factors, so this is not to imply that this mining may be a SINGLE cause, but rather it's one of the POSSIBLE causes if it turns out to be proven (so far, not yet)) of this mudslide. I think logging could make sense as being one of the possible factors in this disaster, although it seems that there are sources (as evident from this article) that says the area was still well-forested.
It's still unclear if those sources are referring to the area within much larger area affected by this particular disaster, because isn't it possible that there may be some area some distance away from this disaster-affected area, even out of it, may actually be factor in this disaster? I don't know if they are referring to the ENTIRE Southern Leyte or actually referring to forested area WITHIN disaster-affected area instead of those that were not affected.
I don't know if the entire Southern Leyte has been affected by mudslide or just only parts of it is actually affected. It's almost, though not always, common for even an island to only actually have parts of itself being affected by disaster and other parts not. So I may be wrong in this but I'd like to see if this can be explained.
Also, returning to the concerns about whether mining actually effects or not, I read from this article that those mining companies were conducting exploration. Is exploration a reference to looking for suitable mining area to mine in and NOT actually mining? It doesn't say if they are actually mining or not, only to say "exploration" or something like that. So I questions whether it is possible for mining "exploration" to be actually one of the causes behind this disaster if they aren't ACTUALLY mining but rather EXPLORING, as in searching for suitable mining area instead of actually doing "mining".
Can someone please explain this or at least point me to suitable articles that addresses those concerns? I'm not a expert on either logging or mining, so some of my concerns are probably unwarranted. But I just want to make sure about this, though. Thanks in advance for anyone to address my concerns.
Respectfully Yours, Legion 00:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the sources do not definitively say that actual mining of minerals was ever done in that region. Afaik, exploration =! mining. That being said, should this be an actual section within this article? The implication in making this a section is that this is the primary reason for the landslide, which I feel would be rather premature given that the Philippine government has yet to start an investigation about it.
With utmost respect,
Ykentwegetalong 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the photos, which show only low scrub present in a climate suited to tall rainforest, I'd say deforestation (very widespread and severe in the Philippines) is the likely major contributor to the disaster. Not adding this to the article until an investigation formally proves it, though. - MPF 13:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that statement may never be added to this article. According to reports, the reason why the disaster happened was not because there was deforestation but because most of the trees present are native coconut trees, which have shallow roots. - Isao
I will be removing this from the ongoing events section at current events. If you do not agree, you can always put it back. Howard the Duck | talk, 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After more than 2 years, scientists are still clueless on the cause of the catastrophe: "Was the landslide caused by ground shaking or excessive rain? This is one of the things that is not yet resolved." Mark Albert Zarco, a professor at the Department of Engineering Sciences, University of the Philippines, Diliman and other scientists from the Philippines, Canada, United States, Japan and Sri Lanka gathered at Southern Leyte workshop, on May 3, 2008, to determine the cause of the landslide. Richard Guthrie, of University of Waterloo, Canada, stated: "We have not completely sorted out the earthquake portion of it but we have had very large rains and we have had very large earthquakes in the past; The rocks have been stretched and strained. As time moves on, the rock begins to age and die and finally it collapses. The important thing is that we’re able to know the preconditioning of the slopes."www.gmanews.tv, Scientists clueless on cause of Southern Leyte landslide --Florentino floro (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]The article switches back and forth between the terms. Which was it? Or was it both or an intermediate form? This should be fixed or explained. --Espoo (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Southern Leyte mudslide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
