Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake

A desperately poor country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Toll

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

Good luck.

John Nichols

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

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

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

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

Michaëlle Jean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why couldn't they just airdrop supplies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [1] --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

16 January

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Volunteerism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ironically, it was not a huge earthquake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road blocks out of dead bodies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images in Geology section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN lives are not worth more than Haitians!!!

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

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

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

Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake

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

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

Expanding the lead

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

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

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

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

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

Remove or provide reference?

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

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

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

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

aftermath violence bias

The following line seems to jump to a conclusion:

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

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

It goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Préval unsure of sleeping place

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the worst disaster the United Nations had ever experienced"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haiti's prison

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

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

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

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

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

Bellerive's comments about busing

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

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

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

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

Media coverage and direct involvement

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

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

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

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

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

Help Haïti

(previously posted in the village pump)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range of photos

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

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

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

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

In or out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rescue action section growing again

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on a removed passage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Dixon died in quake

Add Sam Dixon (humanitarian) to the casualty list.

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

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

Rescue technology

Concrete Borer for rescue

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

Impressive

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

"No security issues"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Of course on TV we see violent incidents and looting," said Alain Le Roy, the United Nations peacekeeping director. However, he said, "There is not widespread looting all over the place." [2] --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Orphans

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

Infrastructure/Damage

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

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

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

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

Scientific papers about the earthquake made freely-available

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

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

To all editors - Regarding citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAARP Conspiracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hi. It is my opinion that no mention of a link between HAARP and the earthquake should be given as it is very questionable the sources of this information. Now, the government of Venezuela through its news television organ ViVe [4] has made declarations in this direction. Whether the content of these accusations is highly questionable (I in my opinion consider is the craziest thing ever done by the Venezuelan government), it is a historic event and important news the fact that a government has taken such a step in rising such accusations. I see it similar to Bush saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, although even more wildly conceived. Whether the content of the accusation is true or not the act of the accusation is an important information as it constitutes a political event from a government to another.  franklin  00:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks

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

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

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

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

Yes, there's already been plenty [5] Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Picture rotation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid Agencies criticize US air traffic control

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

Human Interest stories

This is a great human interest story and there are some neat pictures.[6]

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

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

Wyclef's Jean's comments about helicopters

The edit appeared as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horribly NPOV

The article doesn't criticize the US relief effort enough. I mean really, come on. This is wikipedia and when people come here so they can pretend to be concerned and informed about international events they want to know what they can criticize the US for, and how America is obviously screwing everything up again. This is utterly ridiculous that wikipedia isn't properly fulfilling this need.