Talk:2010 Shanghai fire

Why?

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Also the Jews were evacuated before the fire. So wp:notable. -222.68.185.34 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Time zone of Shanghai

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).

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)

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

Google Maps

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)

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

Address

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

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)

Title need tightening?

It seems to me we could use little tightening of the article name as it strike me as a tad Vague maybe a name like 2010 Shanghai apartment fire or the 2010 (Building name) fire or something as presumeably there are many fires in this year in Shanghai? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I aint picky, just needs to be precise. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No I was just not sure 2010 Shanghai high-rise fire and 2010 Shanghai apartment fire, which is better? I don't like the current one, either. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pix?

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)

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)

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)

Still 53 deaths

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)

Text to be translated later

高层大火黑幕: 违法工程

• http://beyondfirewall.blogspot.com/2010/11/1.html 上海律师郑恩宠再揭高层大火黑幕: 违法工程- 上海只有1%的工程叫我们法定的工程投标律师去签字
• http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20101117/tcaa3.htm 保溫材料疑成助燃器
• http://www.cbmedia.cn/html/72/n-404672.html 国务院调查组：沪起火住宅工程存在违法分包
• http://www.eeo.com.cn/Politics/by_region/2010/11/18/186265.shtml
• http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/10/11/23/n3092477.htm 孙文广：上海大火必须追究领导责任
• http://www.zynews.com/news/2010-11/18/content_778147_2.htm 据《财经》杂志副主编罗昌平在微博上透露，造成上海高楼失火的上海佳艺装饰有限公司的法人代表

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

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)

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

I think it is actually fine to paste news from China based media. Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China: Article 5: This law shall not be applicable to: (2) news on current affairs. But Ming Pao and epochtimes are not China (Mainland) based. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Injured number

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)

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)

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)

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

Is this true?

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)

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)

GA Review

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.

Reviewer: AGK [•] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Concisely written; flows well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Meets WP:V; no obvious factual errors or content of questionable accuracy.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all aspects of the subject matter in adequate depth.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Satisfies WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No ongoing edit wars or substantial expansion of the article. Incident is not a current one and is not rapidly unfolding.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Sensible and engaging use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Happy to grant this article Good Article status. AGK [•] 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Shanghai fire. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120212400/http://www.sh.xinhuanet.com/zhuanti2010/2010-11/19/content_21432421.htm to http://www.sh.xinhuanet.com/zhuanti2010/2010-11/19/content_21432421.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120213327/http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20101117/tcaa1.htm to http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20101117/tcaa1.htm

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 58 people died in Shanghai 13 years ago in a fire that killed more than 50 people in 2010 during a fire? Source: wikipedia
  • Reviewed:

Created by Edenalenestan (talk). Self-nominated at 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2010 Shanghai fire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This article is ineligible for DYK. (See the WP:DYKRULES.) Articles are only eligible for DYK, if within the last seven days, they have either been created, expanded at least fivefold, or promoted to Good Article status. 2010 Shanghai fire was first created on November 15, 2010; it was promoted to Good Article status on January 28, 2011; and while it has been expanded fivefold since November 16, 2010, the expansion did not occur within the last seven days either. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2010 Shanghai fire

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fails criterion 2: This article has multiple citation needed tags, and all sources are contemporary to the event (WP:PRIMARY).
• Fails criterion 3: The article is completely absent of any retrospective coverage or analysis after the sequence of events itself.

It's worth noting that its 2011 promotion was a quickpass that would not meet today's standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (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.