Talk:2010 Shanghai fire

	2010 Shanghai fire was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 17, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept January 28, 2011 Good article nominee Listed March 28, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 15, 2010. Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's project's importance scale .

China Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is there an article for this? There must be thousands of fires everyday, yet none of them have articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be because a significant amount of people died in the fire.--66.183.27.135 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What sets this fire apart from the thousands of others that occur each day is the death toll and the amount of international coverage it has received. However, it is still to be seen whether this event will have enduring significance, and whether it will continue to be covered by multiple sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the falcon as above, per international coverage it is indeed notable as a stand alone. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This fire killed many people and it should be here as written proof that this fire did happen and what are some of the consequences from this fire. Yes it is a news event but it also may be indicative of much more as many of the other news articles have mentioned. Some of these are as simple as how this relates to China's rapid growth and future plans. It does happen that I live in Chicago and happen to have a relative that presently is in intensive care in a hospital in Shanghai as she was in an upper floor apt (I believe 20th) and the stories that we have received have her climbing the scaffolding to escape the horror of the fire that was engulfing the building. As more news presents itself, perhaps what is learned can save many lives in other high rises around the world. Presently 53 people are dead, a catastrophic number from a single fire in any country. I say keep the story alive at this time and if you feel it is irrelevant for the cause you determine then make that judgment at that time. Thank you. Pat from Chicago 69.47.171.216 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Jews were evacuated before the fire. So

wp:notable. -222.68.185.34 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In response to the time zone question below, all of China is in the same time zone 69.47.171.216 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This in the "Rescue efforts" section is confusing, and almost certainly wrong.

Xinhua said the fire was contained at about 6:30 p.m. local time (10:00 UTC), more than four hours after it began.

As far as I know, Shanghai is in time zone UTC+0800. (See http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=237.) At least that was the time zone when I was there 12 months ago!

If the above statement is trying to convert 6:30 pm to UTC, then this should be 10:30 UTC. And I guess that must have been the intention. So could someone please change that to 10:30 UTC? Alternatively, maybe the 6:30 pm should be 6:00 pm.

On another point, the 6:30 pm time uses the 12-hour clock whereas the 10:00 time is apparently in the 24 hour clock. Otherwise it would say 10:00 am. The times here should be consistent. --Alan U. Kennington (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Done. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. There's a deplacement for Chinese area between "Map" and "Satellite" view of the Google maps. 31.2375,121.435 fits for Satellite view while 31.2356,121.4397 fits for Map view. There's no such bug in the Chinese version of Google maps, 31.2356,121.4397 fits for both.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know the street address of the building? Abductive (reasoning) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1, Lane 728, Jiaozhou Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, P.R. China (Chinese: 上海市静安区胶州路728弄1号). --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me we could use little tightening of the article name as it strike me as a tad

What about

2010 Shanghai high-rise fire? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I aint picky, just needs to be

precise. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No I was just not sure

2010 Shanghai apartment fire, which is better? I don't like the current one, either. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am unsure as well, both seem applicable. Though now that I think it should be High-rise.. "Apartment fire" part would be have to be "Apartment Building fire." Thus High Rise seems the most appropriate to me. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per the Wikipedia:Article titles, there is no other WP article on a 2010 fire in Shanghai, so "2010 Shanghai fire" is appropriate (no extra specifics needed). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Flicker things we can upload to commons and add to the article.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/remkotanis/5180792874/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpj/5183496429/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpj/5178087684/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/remkotanis/5180189047/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/remkotanis/5180792552/

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the 3 from remkotanis because they are licensed under CC-by-nc-sa and the commons doesn't accept "nc". The 2 and this one from cpj were requested by me and the author had their license changed to CC-by, thus I've uploaded them. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That why I posted them here, I knew some one would have a better understanding of Licensing isssues. All read CC linsenses read the same to me.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still 53 deaths claimed by Chinese official media xinhua so far. I think that it was reported without saying "the 26 identified are among the 53 victims killed" by xinhua, so reporters from AP and other media took it as 26 more fatalities. But latter xinhua has added the sentence. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang ^talk 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—you cannot simply paste all this text in here; that is still a copyright violation, so I have removed it. You also cannot do a direct translation and use that in the article—you will need to reword the translation, also, for copyright reasons. If you need a copy of the text, please paste it into a word processing document (MS Word, etc.) and translate it on your computer, but you cannot simply paste in a whole copyrighted article in here, even temporarily. Thank you, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. Arilang ^talk 22:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is actually fine to paste news from China based media.

epochtimes are not China (Mainland) based. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What xinhua said on 18 Nov was "火灾住院伤员增至71人", that meant 71 inpatients, who were still in the hospital, but not the total injured number, shanghaidaily mistook for translating. Actually as of 16 Nov 16:00 UTC+8, when death toll at 53, there had been 126 officially reported injuries in total ("上海市政府召开"11·15"特别重大火灾新闻发布会通报". China National Radio (in Chinese). Central People's Broadcasting Station. 17 November 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2010.) I suppose some injuries turned dead when death toll increased to 58. So "more than 120" injured should be acceptable now. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

上海1115大火遇难名单调查行动 Tomchen1989, (1)Number of persons gone missing (2) Ai Weiwei is compiling a list of dead victims, I think all these info should be included. Arilang ^talk 08:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. many media (dw, bbc & rfi) reported this, including even wsj & lianhezaobao not blocked in China.

Some more cmt: Ai's list is a mix of missing and dead, and the total number is 59 (umm I'm not sure if it is really 59 now, zaobao said 61, Ai's early buzz showed 59... Maybe Ai should have had a personal official blog), official reported deaths 58 + missing 56 = 114, so it seems no obvious contradiction between Ai's list and the official report. The official statistics counted the identified deaths and the deaths in hospital as the deaths, counted the rest of who can't be found as the missing. I think it is really hard for the missing one to be still alive, they very likely turned into ashes in the fire, unless some "missing" one left the city immediately after the fire and never go public. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing this up; everything else said 71 and it seemed odd to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About a day before this fire incident, the HK media broadcasted about a "private" security firm hired by the communist party in shanghai. They have these building rooms that act as prison cells to capture citizens that don't agree with the party. All HK media stopped this broadcast in a matter of an hour. The next thing, this shanghai building burned down. All internet search engine results afterwards was about this nonsense fire. So is it true that these are related? Can shanghai citizens tell us more? Maybe it is not related and the HK news got it wrong. But if it is related, then that is bad violation of one country two systems at least for HK citizens. Benjwong (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such private security firms did (and probably do) exist in China (i.e. zh:北京安元鼎), and it is sure that there's plenty of things still covered due to the media control (i.e. it is widely said that the renovation of the building was operated by a relative of Jing'an District's leader). But I think it is farfetched that such a security firm existed and was related to the fire like you said. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:2010 Shanghai fire/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.