Talk:Cyclone Nargis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Etymology

The word "Nargis" originates from the

Safavid Persia was subject to assimilation in Southern, Central, and Western Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagrationi (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The word may have been borrowed from Persian to Urdu, but we are not debating the origination of the word in this article. The fact remains that it is Urdu (Official Pakistani language) here, since it was named by Pakistan (see Cyclone naming article). I suggest it should be changed to Urdu, instead of Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.138 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the name was contributed by Pakistan, so it must be stated as an Urdu word. If we started following etymology than Agni, Akash, Ogni (Originating from Agni meaning Fire), Onil (originating from Anil meaning breeze) and Mala would all have to be recorded as being Sanskrit names instead of Hindi, Bengali and Sinhalese, which makes it a lot more confusing. Badkhan 7:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is somewhat true Badkhan, except for the fact that Hindi, Bengali, and Sinhalese are all Indo-European languages that are derived from Sanskrit. Urdu is essentially Hindi with heavy influence from Persian and Arabic, meaning that we must give credit where it is due. For example, we would not say the phrase quid pro quo is English even though it is used in English--it is Latin. Perhaps we should find a way to express the fact that the name "Nargis" derives from Persian, but also that the cyclone was named officially by Pakistan. bagrationi 12:50, 17 May 208 (UTC)
What does the level of influence of one language on another have to do with the meaning of a single word? Keep in mind that we are discussing about a single word only, not a whole language. It does not matter how much Urdu is influenced by Persian, Arabic and Turkish and how Hindi, Bengali, and Sinhalese are only derived from Sanskrit, if we do start giving the credit of that single word(the cyclone name) to the original language from which it came from than all of the above mentioned words would have to be credited to Sanskrit, which will make it all too confusing.
Besides that, you did add a similar sentence before to the article which was edited with the comment "I dont think a long explanation is needed to show the great etymological history of the word nargis." to which Titoxd replied "point taken". Badkhan 7:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The level of influence of one language on the other is irrelevant, Badkhan. What is relevant is the fact that Urdu and Persian are completely unrelated to each other, negating the part about it being "confusing". The Indo-Aryan languages that you listed are essentially developed and modified versions of another language, Sanskrit, meaning that accrediting a word in one of those languages to Sanskrit is equivalent to giving a more archaic form of the word (which is confusing). However, consider the quid pro quo example more closely. The word nargis never existed in Urdu, and was completely borrowed from another language. It is not confusing to list the origin of a word if it was completely borrowed from another language, such as the phrase quid pro quo. We must give credit where it is due. I understand that you are Pakistani and that you want to label the word nargis as Urdu, but as an unbiased Georgian student, I feel that we must give credit where it is due. We would do the same with English words directly borrowed from Latin, especially if we took the time and space to even mention the etymology of the word in the article. Bagrationi 7:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"The level of influence of one language on the other is irrelevant"...I completely agree. So now instead of analyzing how Urdu and Persian are unrelated and how all other languages are developed versions of Sanskrit, lets concentrate on the words (The names of cyclones). Nargis is written as Narges in Persian, while Mala, Agni and Akash are written and pronounced exactly in the same manner in Sanskrit, Hindi and Sinhalese the only different word is Onil which is Anil in Sanskrit and Hindi. Now looking at this, Mala, Agni and Akash look a lot more borrowed than perhaps Nargis which looks a bit more modified/derived. As far as the quid pro quo is concerned there are a few factors to consider here, we state it as a latin word because 1. it is completely borrowed (which nargis is not, there is a slight difference in spelling and pronounciation) 2. it is not in common use anymore (while nargis is still commonly used and majority of the Pakistani will easily identify it) and 3. It just doesn't sound English (Nargis does not sound alien as compared to other Urdu words). "We must give credit where it is due" I again completely agree and I am not saying that the origin of the word should not be identified as Persian, it is a Persian word. All I am saying is that if we started giving origins of each word than perhaps Akash, Agni, Onil and Mala won't be a problem because we do know that these originate from Sanskrit but finding etymology of Pyarr, Yemyin, Phyan, Thane, Na-nauk, Khai-muk, Phet, Phailan etc. will quite frankly become a pain in the ass.
Now as far as me being biased because I am Pakistani....dude i don't know..perhaps its my lack of command on english language that i am sounding too patriotic or something, but let me state this clearly that the only reason that I am debating this thing with you is because I was the one who first included the meaning and I don't think that giving etymology is necessary in a article regarding a cyclone. It has absolutely nothing to do with my nationality. Badkhan 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good dear, Badkhan--there's no point in arguing with you. You do not listen to what other people say, and you edit articles objectively and with an agenda.

Re Death Toll

Death Toll Update

I found some sources (not sure how "good" they are) but perhaps a good look would help some people out. "Confirmed" death toll seems to be at least 80,000 (in one district alone) with the highest estimate I have seen being over 600,000. Here are the links:[1], [2], [3], and [4]. The great kawa (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded, I guess I will use these sources. The first one plus a link from The Australian and AFP and Reuters ([5]) quotes the deaths at at least 80,000 people in one district (as per an official there), therefore I will ensure that the current total reflects that (if you disagree, please don't just change it and let's have a dialog on it). I will also be adding a mention of the estimated death from
Moethee Zun who claims he asked a government official about it. The great kawa (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A blog post is not a reliable source. Especially since no estimates from respected news organizations ever gave an estimate even close to 600,000.Baller92 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a.) It is not the blog of just a random nobody, but one of the prominent leaders of the Burmese democracy movement who apparently is quoting public figures. If Anderson Cooper said something in his blog, it would have the same value.b.) It is simply mentioned in the article as a note, it is not put up in the template because of the speculative nature of the claim. But it does give a sense of the range from the government's estimate of 23,000 to a pro-democracy leader's claim that he has heard local officials say it is as high as 600,000. With the average around 100,000+ at least, I would say it is pretty fair.c.) The 80,000 is entirely reliable having been quoted by Reuters and with a named official. The great kawa (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No respectable media outlets or any other reliable sources have ever gave an estimate even close to 600000. Also, a blog is a self published source, which violates WP policy. Also this guy has a political agenda, ie promoting democracy, so we can't exactly say that he is neutral.Baller92 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it as is for now. After this event is far from current I will see whether we can re-evaluate it (to see if more sources quote his words) or can include it at least as an unbiased perspective of both sides (one from the government's "estimate" and one from a prominent Burmese democracy-movement leader (also claimed to be from a public figure)). But for now, I do see your point. Thank you for actually raising the issue. The great kawa (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of media outlets reported that the Red Cross confirmed a death number between 69,000 and 128,000. This is not correct. The Red Cross Red Crescent report that contained this number was attempting to reflect the range of estimates of a number of other organizations. The Red Cross Red Crescent is not verifying these figures. There is no Red Cross Red Crescent death toll figure. (Timoluege (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

News agencies are reporting this morning that the death toll as reported by officials in Burma, is nearing 78,000, with a further 56,000 still missing. Should we consider updating the numbers, or wait for a more accurate count?Rwking2 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Death Toll

Cyclone Nargis struck 3 and a half months ago and the thousands of missing people were never found. Can it be assumed that the missing people are dead, or will we continue to wait longer until they are found, if they ever will be?

Number of deaths

15,000? 10,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezekieloak (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unknown an exact number yet; most news sources say the first, but quite a few say the latter. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could someone involved change the Chinese interwiki's info to Chinese and add the history to the French version, I could do some of that but don't have time at the moment, and my grammar was probably quite poor. Thanks. ~
U) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I think around 22000 people dead..and 41000 missing some resources claim around 80000 people dead but not cleared Uknown Dost (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Uknown Dost (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Uknown Dost (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN.com is now reporting that the United States government is using an NGO that estimates upwards of 100,000 have been killed. I doubt if there will ever be a confirmed number, given the amount of damage and the lack of reliable information from Myanmar's government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.124.211 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 million homeless and resistance to foreign aid

I added this to expand the current events: Foreign aid workers concluded that 50,000 people died, and 2 to 3 million are homeless, the worst disaster in the Burma’s history, and comparable with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Andrew Kirkwood, country director of the British charity Save The Children, stated: “We’re looking at 50,000 dead and millions of homeless,I'd characterise it as unprecedented in the history of Burma and on an order of magnitude with the effect of the tsunami on individual countries. There might well be more dead than the tsunami caused in Sri Lanka.” On May 6, 2008, the Burmese Government in New York, formally asked the UN for help. But in other ways, it remains resistant to the most basic assistance.www.timesonline.co.uk, Burma cyclone: up to 50,000 dead and millions homeless, but still no call for aid--Florentino floro (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC are now stating 100,000 on their website. Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.227.140 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 million in danger of death

I added this dire warning: Oxfam International's regional chief Sarah Ireland warned that 1.5 million face death if they do not get clean water and sanitation soon: "It's really crucial that people get access to clean water sources and sanitation to avoid unnecessary deaths and suffering."hindustantimes.com, Oxfam warns 1.5 million at risk in Myanmar--Florentino floro (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll, planned edit

The death toll of 146,000 was added by an IP here The associated reference says 78,000, but presumably, the number was copied from the info box. That number hashad 5 references, three of which are no longer available, and the other two of which do not support 146k (unless I missed something.) I propose replacing the number with 138,000, which is consistent with the two remaining most recent references in the info box, and support the lede with this reference (see page 20).

Anyone opposed?--SPhilbrickT 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I add a citation containing estimates of the fatalities and missing. Note that the total fatality count includes the estimate of the missing, this is consistent with the way it was and is worded in the main article, but the info box and lede suggested the missing were over and above the fatality count.
I did not remove the working, but dated link in the lede, I simply added a more recent and reliable citation. In the main text, the link did not go to a working article that I could see, so I replaced the link with the sigma article link.
I changed the infobox, the lede, and the Burma(Myanmar) section. I didn't read the entire article carefully, if I missed areas needing correction, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll: 31,938

Hi. I added this info last night but it was removed because it was not reffed. However, this is not the 80,000-90,000 "official" death toll, it is the current confirmed death toll. I saw this on the news last night, so it might not be up-to-date, but there should be a findable ref somewhere. Thanks. ~

U) 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

According to CNN (based on a report by Myanmar state television) death toll has reached almost 78,000 and 56,000 people remain missing. Please, someone update the article with this info (i am a bit confused about the right way of adding references). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.53.217.165 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I found a damage figure (>$10B), does that make Nargis the costliest North Indian storm ever? CrazyC83 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New worl (talk • contribs) [reply]

Top-importance?

At what point does importance go up to the highest level? I know it doesn't have the media attention of Katrina, but it is definitely an extreme event. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just going on death count, the 1991 Cyclone had 138,000 deaths and is high. That should probably be top, but if its not then I don't think this should be...unless the toll grows much higher. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highest priority! Katrina kills 1,800 people and its non-stop new coverage for months. This cyclone has already killed 15,000. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment priority of
cool stuff) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

it just scares me hoew this can actually happen i am moved deeply how many people are homeless and have lost there familiesi think many people are dying in natrual disaters global warming will be the biggest disater yet! we must stop global warming1 jion me!! From(=ilovematthew=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.148.176 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis, Katrina, and the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, should get the same importance scale?! -✉ Hello World! 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone can provide more information explaining why these cyclones are so extraordinarily deadly relative to Hurricane Katrina, and a more detailed discussion of the circumstances surrounding the deaths. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget its upto a 100,000 change teh front page

Probably for the same reason the same hurricane will kill 20 people in Haiti, then hit the US as a category more powerful and cause no deaths. Crowded, low-lying areas with easily eroding soil (because of extreme deforestation), poorly constructed buildings, and poor or nonexistent emergency relief cause many more deaths. Basically, poorer, less developed countries are hurt the worst. In a similar way, Bangladesh tends to have exceptionally deadly floods because it is poor, very densely populated, and low-lying. New Orleans was low-lying and somewhat poor, but US building codes still applied, the US Gulf Coast still has buffer wetlands, and the resources of the US were brought to bear. Even so, it killed nearly 2,000 people, which is exceptional for a natural disaster in the US. Vultur (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the central Gulf Coast had similar building codes and preparations as in Myanmar, the death toll from Katrina would have likely been over 50,000 as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

It might be worth mentioning that the hard hit Irrawaddy Delta suffers from being a large, flat region only several meters above sea level to begin with [6], which amplifies the impact of storm surge. Dragons flight (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, ouch, Irrawaddy Delta is a bad place for a redlink right now. Dragons flight (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Writing both the German WP and WN articles on this, I can't provide more than some sources which I find useful. May one other have the time to include relevant information here:

Perhaps I'll add more later. --

talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Relief efforts

  • I can do later today or sometime tommmorrow, but can somebody start the relief effort section (unless there is a separate article although I don't see it in the see also sectiom).

This article may be a start as well as this. Thanks! --JForget 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added details. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well due to poor transport facilities and late in visa for outside aid its difficult to handle setution there.Uknown Dost (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the private relief section is only there for advertising for donations? Orracle107 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started that section based on a post I made to metafilter.com, primarily because the response to this disaster has been so... lacking... compared to the tsunami response. The logic was that if governments can't get through then why not private orgs, especially the ones who are already *in* the country. It was intended solely as a way to let the online masses fund groups who can help, just as happened during the tsunami response. What it's become since then I can't speak to. jwells —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BRAVO! State's media just covers up on Thailand's contribution by plane. Yet; USA and Australian and more countries provided aid in a way of non-politics. However, UK is not showing great aspect since it is politically played and some critics mis-viewed that £5 million are going to Burma, rather than providing aid to the victims and disaster. Not sure whether US Navy ships are helpful; perhaps it may find out more references to the deaths and clear off the polution and damages.
talk) 16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Impact on the whole environment

Will it be normalized in a month? What can we expect worst? In terms of soaring consuming products and services to 500% again? How should the relief efforts and organisation be expanded in Burma?

talk
) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Waterlevels appear to drop now, crops have been destroyed, the whole delta wich is probably the most economic relevant area of the nation needs to be rebuild, it is a lot to say the situation will be normalised within a month. otoh i think in some aspects the reports are exagerated, i recall a statement, "main sewers haven burst in yangon, destroying the rice crops". Wich is crap, there is no rice in yangon, and hardly main sewerage where there is. However if u include the need to coastal defences for the delta you can be sure myanmar will never be the same. Food situation will only rili improve when the next crop can be harvested.77.251.189.88 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track map

When a Nargis's track map will be available? I'm asking this because I have a simple Nargis's track map (like Jokwe's track map and Kamba's track map), using JTWC operational track data (JMV 3.0 Data), but it should be, later, replaced by a WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks track map. Should I upload it on Commons or should I wait until a WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks|WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks track map is available? (my grammar was probably quite poor) -Ramisses (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who know how to operate the track map generators aren't very active, especially in storms outside of the Atlantic, so the best bet would be to find a free-use track map on the internet. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simple version would be fine for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Track maps can be updated and new versions uploaded as well. Just upload your version on Commons for now.
cool stuff) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


Are there any news that cyclone properly effects on the Phillipines?
talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I wasn't aware Myanmar is anywhere near the Philippines in SE Asian terms. Boils (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

While I personally am a strong supporter of calling

Burma Myanmar I think it's worth remembering that wikipedia policy requires consistency within an article (NOT across wikipedia) and that in the absence of a clear cut consensus, we should go with the first contributor's preference. In this case, it was Burma [7] and therefore until and unless there is consensus otherwise, it should remain Burma. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

As the first editor, the only reason I used Burma was because that is where the Wikipedia article is located at. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that is precisely what those "pro-Burma" advocators are hoping to see happen when they rename the article to "Burma" in the midst of the monk protests last year. So while nuetral news reports speak of a hurricane devastating "Myanmar", we in Wikipedia says it has devastated "Burma" because the US and British governments says so.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disagree: if a racist or politically motivated person starts an article or someone that wants to start an article and knows nil einne thinks it should be called myanmar, wiki will end up being a political medium and not an objective encyplodedian work.77.251.189.88 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a question of currency, and what makes the difference what you call it provided it stays the same? This isn't a political article, not yet at least. The only one I've heard say Myanmar is Laura Bush. Katana Geldar 05:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Mangroves

May be useful [8] [9] Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Areas affected

I reduced the list of areas affected to just Burma. It's not clear to me why Sri Lanki, India, or Bangladesh should have been included (especially why they should have been ahead of Burma in the list). Is this an artifact of some earlier time when the destination of the storm was still in question? -- KarlHallowell (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were impacted by outer bands or later impacts, just that Burma (Myanmar) had the catastrophic destruction. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them back in, since those other areas were impacted by the cyclone. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll let it stand, but I'm sorting them in alphabetical order. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IMD published some meteorological background in its weekly round up. I have webcited that. --
    talk) 15:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

International Relief List

I think it would be much more educationally useful to list the international contributions in size order (highest to lowest). (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 GMT I am not impressed with the fervor with wich donators want to have their names and organisations known, wich slightly different also goes for the myanmar media that lists aid shipments 'proudly?'.iotw i think these kind of listings invite abuse and misrepresent. In fact you could make the point that the first 5 days direct aid (vessels, roofing, watercleaning pills) was not but reluctantly offered. ok i realise ppl fear these means can be abused, but we cud still have sailed or flown in materials immediatly.77.251.189.88 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this: Japan will channel the $ 10 million through UN World Food Program & $ 570,000 dollars pledged assistance.Abs-Cbn Interactive, Japan gives $10-M aid to Myanmar; The United Nations estimated in its report that 1.5 million people were "severely affected" by this worst cyclone in Asia since 1991, when 143,000 people were killed in neighboring Bangladesh.Abs-Cbn Interactive, UN: 1.5 million people affected by Myanmar storm --Florentino floro (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with the making of International Relief List now. Cos, it it not coming to be effective in delivering aids into the disaster area, since the situation in Myanmar has changed. They block all IR including
talk) 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The "biggest donors" being the UK, Canada and the US respectively seems inaccurate, the table says Canada gave up to 2 million USD, there are several listed countries are higher, Australia is listed at 23.5 million, which (by my glancings) should give them the number 2 spot between the UK and US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.142.110 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoffs

The article is currently 38KB in size. ALthough this is not a problem now, I think it is reasonable to assume that the article is going to get bigger. It might be prudent to split some spinoff articles once the article reaches (say) 50KB in size . Creating (examples) an International response to Cyclone Nargis or Aftermath of Cyclone Nargis would make this the first non-Atlantic storm to have sub-articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 15.4 KB of prose, through, so I'm not sure that's necessary. Remember that they're harder to maintain too.
cool stuff) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's why I said it wasn't a problem now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. But my point was that it wouldn't be a problem until we got into the 75-100 KB wikitext range, which would then translate into about 50 KB of readable prose. At that point, we'd have to worry about
cool stuff) 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to agree let's take great care with spinoffs. They are indeed harder to maintain and we often get some rather shitty articles as a result. Perhaps it's been fixed, but the last time several months ago I looked into the Asian tsunami related articles, most of them were a mess describing things like relief needed or death estimates as if it just happened last week or current fears of possibles diseases etc etc. While I'm not saying the spinoffs weren't necessary there it does bring to mind why splitting an article before it's needed is always going to be a bad idea Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example the tables about financial aid provided vould be easily ommited. First of all, because of it will be outdated every second day. --
    talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Referendum may not necessary to list in the artice

There may be some co-relation to Cyclone Nargis, but I think it should not list in the article as it will mis direct to its meaning and top importance.

talk) 13:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It should be mentioned, as other countires have been asking the Burmese govenment to postpone the referendum and they haven't. Isn't it going on now? Katana Geldar 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

BBC pics

I had to add this:*BBC, In pictures: Burmese aid crisis --Florentino floro (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. The Beeb is good.
cool stuff) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting you've mentioned BBC. The BBC newsworld footage showed a chinese plane unloading of aid as well as aid packages labelled in Chinese, yet the voice-over made no mention of the aid coming from China and kept on saying how Burma has been refusing "international" aid. Perhaps when they say "international" they really mean the "western world". Even in this article, China's aid has been reduced to one row in the table. --Kvasir (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Nargis is Category 4?

Do not bother if there is an authority to classify

SSHS of Nargis. However, Nargis has only 215km/h of gust, 165km/h of 3-min average, and if we are talking about sustain maximum wind speed (normally 10 mins), it should be far less than 165km/h. This is Cat2. It also having only 962 hPa either, which is only about Cat2 instead of Cat4. Is Nargis being over-classified? --203.186.20.219 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

SSHS = 1-min sustained winds, which are 215 kph, or the lower boundary of a Cat4.
cool stuff) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nargis is not being over-classified because the IMD is the RSMC for this basin, and their observations were 105 mph winds and 962 milibars of pressure; the JTWC assesed the peak at 135 mph winds and no exact lowest pressure at this intensity, though it was likely around 943-946 milibars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google

Isn't Google donating 1 million dollars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're trying to get us help them too, aren't they? Katana Geldar 11:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)
talk) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Move protection

As the article is linked from the main page right now, it is a high-risk vandalism target. While there's many editors keeping an eye out on the article, it isn't necessary to waste time reverting page moves, so I've move-protected the article for the time being. In the unlikely scenario where we decide to move it to something like

cool stuff) 08:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Name lists don't recycle in the North Indian Ocean, so such moves are unnecessary. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30-40% children

I added this ext. link so that the readers will find the percentage: Report: One-third of Myanmar cyclone deaths are children40% of Myanmar dead are children--aid group, Save the Children --Florentino floro (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush quote

..please remove it. Put rather Ban-Ki Moon's. Bush is also criminal and this may be NPOV--

Ч) 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Calm down there, sport. You don't think it is a bit POV to withhold the Bush quote because you think he is a criminal? Saget53 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
still, my argument stands. His quote is irrelevant and I suggest putting of some humanitarian chiefs quote.--
Ч) 10:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, it's completely out of place. Read the section and then read the quote, it does absolutely nothing to enhance the section, and there's nothing informative about it - and NOT because he's a "criminal", because it doesn't make sense to put a quote from the American president there. I don't see that there's a need for a quote from anyone there, but if we insist on it, include one from an individual who more closely tied to the situation. Come on, Wikipedia, you can do better than this. Kellenwright (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You, too, are part of Wikipedia, so you can fix it just as well as anybody else can. See
WP:BOLD. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The Bush quote belongs more there than in the lead section, where it was before. That said, I don't mind if you guys nuke it, but I'd prefer that the section around it be expanded.
cool stuff) 03:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reference to "Burmese militants"

The following sentence should either be backed up by citation or revised. "Furthermore, Burmese militants were found to be selling aid to the highest bidder." The term "Burmese militants" is ambiguous. The country has a thriving back market, but the black marketeers are not "militants" as the term is generally understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethwongsf (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Italy Section

The Italy sub-section of the International Relief section in this article is very poorly wirtten. It uses first person (we, us, etc.), contains typographical errors, has extremely poor grammar, and even seems to have a pro-Italian bias, which is against

WP:NPOV
. It also does not cite any sources. This section should be rewritten as soon as possible, with good sources and neutral point of view. I'm not sure if anyone wants to scour the history of this article to find the writer of this section in order to give polite correction, but this would also be appropriate.

Thanks,

Talk) 01:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Quick research (i.e. google searches) show that the May 8th flight was from the UN's Humanitarian Response Depot located in
talk) 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved
Completely replaced with less exuberant language. The source is actually the same source as the one in the table, took a little sleuthing around to find an indication it was actually Italian aid.
talk) 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Time to remove...

the current {{current disaster}} template, now that we are nearing one month after the storm? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There is still plenty of info coming in daily. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. For example, [10] is dated today, May 27th. "Stressing that almost two million lives were “still at stake” following Cyclone Nargis, Mr. Ban said that Canada has agreed to transport helicopters to Myanmar to support the aid effort, but he added that “much, much more needs to be done.”" Sounds like it's still a disaster area to me.
talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hampering aid...

The article states in the introduction that "Further hampering the relief effort was the unfortunate fact that only ten days after the cyclone nearby central China was hit by a massive earthquake, known as the Sichuan earthquake which measured 7.9 in magnitude and itself is projected to have taken nearly 50,000 lives." In what way does this actually hampers aid, unless there are reported shortages of relief materials, medicine, food and water on the global market? It should also be noted that the line is not sourced.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locking?

Maybe this article could do with locking from edits until its been fully cleaned up. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?
cool stuff) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There don't appear to be any raging controversies or persistent vandalism of the page, so locking it seems a strange proposal... It could use some work, clearly, and it isn't anywhere near a GA status, but it's really not that bad.
talk) 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this article should be locked because you have messages in the private relief and references section saying this article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, or the tone or style of this section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, and so on. There appears to be vandalism going on here and this article should be locked until all of the non-reliable references for this article are removed. Do you support this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.183.151 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Turkish Press" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=229800 |title=Aid workers race to reach Myanmar cyclone victims |work=Turkish Press |author=Associated Press |date=2008-05-08 |accessdate=2008-05-08}}
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.trocaire.ie/news/story.php?id=1295 |title=AReports from Burma of chaos and devastation among survivors |work=Trocaire |author=Trocaire|date=2008-05-16 |accessdate=2008-05-08}}

talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Updating needed

Seems most of the article hasn't been updated in any meaningful way since early June or so... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's really hard to get much information now, the disaster is in some ways still around, but if you watch almost any news station, or read almost any paper, you'll find nothing on the storm. There are only online sources for information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sad fact, but the only people who know anything are sitting around in cafes in Bangkok & Chiang Mai (Thailand) --and aren't talking. A lot of crestfallen humanitarian types, who either tried to get involved (and failed), or who are still attempting to track the outcomes for money and resources that they handed over. All of those agencies will write "final reports" on the outcomes (probably months into the future). Although much of this is remarked on with sarcasm, really, truly, a lot of the professionals are effectively heartbroken by the way their aid attempts were blunted. The same people, by and large, are completely inarticulate, and incapable of writing up a decent article (etc.) on what went wrong, how, etc. Any journalist hanging out with falangs in Chiang Mai could probably gather a wealth of facts that are on their way into agency-specific reports; it would also be interesting to note if any of the national aid agencies write reports --as some of them are contractually required to account for outcomes (not all, and not always in public reports). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.5.107 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

is there a reason why it says $10 billion in 2008 USD, but apparently it's less in 2010 USD? something sure ain't right. --

talk) 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It fine as the inflation figure for 2008-2010 USD is currently 0.99 of a dollar. (ie you buy something for a dollar and it would cost you 0.99p today).Jason Rees (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh wow, yea, i looked around a bit, and i guess obviously with this great recession, stuff has gone down. --
talk) 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah i guess when the figures are next updated it will sort its self out.Jason Rees (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re Copyright

Copyright problem

Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Copyright problem

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Date format

In reply to @

ʜᴜʜ? 11:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know, but I thought Wikipedia policies said the version to be used for dates and dialects (or something like that) is that which was most prominent for the first non-stub revision.
(talk) 20:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Cyclone Nargis. 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.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 10:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclone Nargis. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Cyclone Nargis. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12.9 billion?

Sources show it costed at least 10 billion, none made reference to 12.9 billion. Alex of Canada (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Nargis&oldid=1211216891"