Talk:2010 Pakistan floods/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

expand

a lot more to add the Air Blue crash a few days was hindered in rescue/recoveery due to rains and floods.

Also need the reactions/aid donors, etc. UN promised some, usa, china, etc.(Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps & OpenStreetMap

Over on OpenStreetMap we're working on mapping the region better. This is being coordinated at ['2010 07 Pakistan Floods' on the OpenStreetMap wiki]

Last night I made a map image to help coordinate mapping, but if you're interested in a similar image for the wikipedia article, it's based on OpenCycleMap terrain rendering (which in turn is based on NASA SRTM data). The image is cc-by-sa2.0 licensed. See the image description page for some details.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

India and Afghanistan too

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Article moved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

{{movereq|2010 Pakistan floods|These floods are affecting all four provinces of Pakistan and not just Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. See this BBC article for example}}

2010 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa floods → 2010 Pakistan floods — These floods are affecting all four provinces of Pakistan and not just Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. See this BBC article for example Urduboy (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support: The disaster was at a national level, the present name is also of a nature that it is unfamiliar to many people outside Pakistan - so if the name were changed people would be able to track down and read this article much more easily.Kotare (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong support Pakistan floods is how the English speaking media are describing it rather than saying Khyber Pakhtunkhwa floods. As Kotare says, this is a disaster at a national level. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I recall media usage of the words "floods in northwest Pakistan" but since the floods are affecting parts of all the provinces, this move is appropriate. Green Giant (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not an expert on this, but have their been anyother notable fol notable floods in Pakistan. Would it have to be dabbed by month or such. If there's other flooding in Pakistan in 2010 I wouldn't have such a generic title just because its more notable. If there are no such issues I do not object. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. The most useful title. Bob talk 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as the flood has reached other provinces as well. Schnurzipurz (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If there is no opposition to this move within 12 hours then make the move. It seems pretty uncontroversial and sensible. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have moved the page myself but it is move-protected so we'll need someone with admin rights to make the move. --Urduboy (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have left a message on the talkpage of the admin that protected the article to see if they will make the move or unprotect it. Its set to run out in 2 days anyway so if no admin arrives we could always wait till then. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One should move this to 2010 South Asia floods as apparently Indian Kashmir and aFGHANISTAN HAVE HAD FLOODING TOO.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PD photos, dozens of them

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0810_pakistan/ --DAI (Δ) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth a mention?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6335115.cms could be mentioned in the Indian response section. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

hearsay

"Some Pakistani commentators also said that the construction of dams on the Sutlej and Beas rivers by India had exacerbated the situation, claiming that India deliberately released water from the dams to increase flooding.[37]" This is hearsay. "Some Pakistani commentators" is not a reliable source. I suspect that someone just doesn't like India and is inserting demonizing propaganda in your wiki article. (I am neutral and have no bias towards India or Pakistan.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Response by US

I think it is overly detailed. What do other editors think? Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, not a fan in particular of the "forefront of response" or whatnot, even if it's what the BBC says, it still seems POV, seems to me to be sort of implying that the US is the only country providing major aid, not crediting other countries. That aside, I think everything except material aid should be thrown out—i.e., the quotes, stuff about visits, pretty much everything not about cash and helicopters, since those are the only things providing direct aid, everything else is more indirect. (And also the Clinton giving ten dollars, that's just a publicity stunt.) C628 (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The more detail, the better as long as it has anything to do with aid. Even the queen giving "an undisclosed amount via the British Red Cross" is a useful bit of information. There is nothing wrong with the phrase "forefront of response" in describing the US aid. It does not imply the US is the only country providing aid but it is obvious it is ahead of everybody else. This is not propaganda as much as suppressing it would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.250.77 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is not like an encyclopedia. If the BBC says the U.S. is at the forefront, it is good enough for me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
USA is at the forefront of the response like it is for most disasters. dont see any problem at all with mentioning that.--Wikireader41 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have taken a look, and it seems it is all sourced and notable information. If anyone wanted to expand other international responses, go ahead.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please all of you, please stop all this deletion bullshit. Wikipedia is now yours, you don't own the fucking Wikipedia. If information is wrong, then please delete it. But all the information is true, so please don't try to boost your ego and delete everything. Please, no deletions of facts and well written information.--Jo (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I think that the information on the USA is ok, because it is all true. Please don't delete.--Jo (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Floods and Propaganda

I have noticed some people are trying to use 2010 Pakistan floods as a source to propagate propaganda -The typical "terrorism" B.S, linking their sources to articles already notorious for biased information. Kindly take note of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.96.222 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Floods subsection

Under the 'floods' subsection under the flooding section, the title appears to be right above the satellite images of the flooding instead of the text body. I would appreciate it if someone would fix this.

Thanks Umervakil 16:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umervakil (talk • contribs)

Split Section

I have been making some copyediting and rephrasing changes. I have come to the opinion that the international aid section ought to be split into its own article, such as Pakistan flood relief efforts. As an example, see Hurricane Katrina. Cogitatione (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

International response

Hi, I am updating this section regularly. Can someone please help me make it more organized. Perhaps making a table, a row for each country. I am new to wikipedia. Will be grateful. Thanks! Remukhan (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction lists? Id be willing, give me some time. (tomorrow perhaps)
There is however some cleanup required here. Consistent spelling, grammar, etc. In addition to POV that shwos up in the edit with the intention to amplify criticism. certain into is more suited to a web log than an encycopaedia to state "China and India, two economically thriving neighbors of Pakistan." That status is completely irrelevant.
Sourced criticism like this is better to add "India has in the past been quick to respond in times of natural disasters and has dispatched aid on a number of occasions to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and even Pakistan — at the time of the 2005 quake. One planeload of relief material was sent to the quake victims in PoK. Pakistan had at the time refused the aid, possibly because relief was meant for PoK. “The government should still think of doing something about it because at times of such crisis, it is odd for neighbours to remain silent,” said another retired diplomat."
as is "usually a routine first step to offering assistance" which is original research and/or synthesisLihaas (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I sorted the response list alphabetically and added flag icons.Remukhan (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit should be back in Thriving economic neighbour China and India have done very little even though India was quick to respond to other disasters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


Chinese Response: The article both states that China was one of the first nation to respond to the flood as well as "China and India were criticized for their slow reactions". Isn't that conflicting info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfishninja (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Saudi/Chinese Response:

I checked the Bloomberg source and no where did it mention that China was criticized for its slow reaction. Nor was Saudi Arabia mentioned any where in that article. I am going to delete the sentence "China and Saudi Arabia, close allies to Pakistan..." sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfishninja (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • How about response by Philippines government? --Saki talk 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage

How is it pages on floods in Western Anglophone countries (some with very minimal deaths) (2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods, 2009 Kentuckiana Flash Flood, 2009 Georgia floods and 2009 Red River flood for examples) are so well covered, while this page, on a flood that has displaced millions and killed hundreds (not to mention 2009 Karachi floods and 2009 India floods, 2009 Angola, Namibia and Zambia floods, 2009 El Salvador floods and mudslides, 2009 European floods, 2009 Angola, Namibia and Zambia floods, Situ Gintung, etc.), barely stretches beyond a handful of sections? Looks like the forces of systemic bias are stronger as ever. - 60.50.63.153 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is powered by users, please encourage your friends to contribute. I will do so myself as well. --aamir malik (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you know, maybe its the fact that wikipedia is updated by those anglo-centric places that are told by the hermit governments of the middle and south east to piss off and leave them to their (inhumane) ways. Not nearly as much data will ever be available for this flood which would be for the most minor of floods in the developed world. It's not wikipedia that is biased here, it is the media from which we are sourcing our information. But hey, you CAN click the edit button. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it reflects the (low) level of connection and relevance of Pakistan to the wider world. Mind you, the west was very involved in assisting the friendly (hint hint), open, and globally connected populations of SE Asia after their 2004 tsunami. Monteitho (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just ass information yourself. no big deal. --Jo (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


The BBC reported that at least 20 million here displaced, 16 million without food, 10 million without homes and more than 8 million are children. They are usually conservative in their estimates, but were re-reporting the facts from a UN report, which

[[1]]

Flood damages in figures:
20 million persons affected - of which over 75 percent are in Sindh and Punjab Millions in need of urgent humanitarian aid
An area of at least 160,000 km2 ravaged by floods
Over 2 million hectares of crops lost
Almost 1.9 million homes destroyed or damaged
At least 10 million people currently without shelter
Further it was reported on the BBC Programme that almost 8 million are children.
I guess you think its a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.200.19 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Relief efforts: inaccurate

The UNOCHA report on humanitarian assistance by donor just came out [2] and is in may positions at variance with the "Reponse by national governments" section of the article. Thus, contributions of many countries are underreported in Wikipedia. The then following "Reponse by (others)" sections appear somewhat haphazardly composed and their accuracy may be doubtful as well, underreporting likely to be an issue. Also, while, of course, every contribution counts, where do we draw a line in listing it in Wikipedia? Ekem (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusing/Conflicting Information?

From second paragraph of intro: "UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had initially asked for $460 million for emergency relief, noting that the flood was the worst disaster he had ever seen. Only 20% of the relief funds requested had been received as of 15 August 2010."

From Relief Efforts section: "both the US and the EU each had contributed about $450 million for the relief effort"

Seems like a major contradiction. And if it's not a major contradiction, then the article does not account for this discrepancy in any way. In any case, this needs to be improved. I'm just pointing this out because it seemed pretty obvious to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violent.j.11 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed text/combined total of individuals affected

Haitians are still dying from the effects of the earthquake, so it's not possible to compare loss of life due to the Pakistan Floods with the other referenced disasters. This comparison seems inappropriate, like a competition for sympathy. Does anyone disagree? Here's the text I removed: The number of individuals affected by the flooding exceeds the combined total of individuals affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake.[1]

Sorry, forgot to sign:Octopet (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Same could stated regarding Pakistan floods...Pakistanis dying from the after effects of the floods. personally I assume that after effects of floods are as long as earthquakes. I think giving a relative comparison is always useful as it helps readers to understand and visualise the magnitude of a disaster compared to other commonly known disasters.Peaceworld111 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"This article is outdated."

What exactly is outdated?--EclecticEnnui (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was added on the assumption that the article needed updating in the weeks after the event. I have removed the tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

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

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

Somebody please delete the vandalism from references 78 and 335. I do not think the words "penis" and "sunny leone then fucked him" belong there.74.129.182.181 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2010 Pakistan floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2010 Pakistan floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2010 Pakistan floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Floods in Pakistan worse than tsunami, Haiti". gulfnews. Retrieved 2010-08-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Pakistan_floods/Archive_1&oldid=1146587375"