Talk:2021 East Asia sandstorm

Requested move 16 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus for "2021 East Asia sandstorm" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 North China sandstorm → 2021 Mongolian Plateau sandstorm – The sandstorm primarily hit the nomad area in the Mongolian Plateau (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia) where 10 people died in Mongolia and still 11 missing after more than one day, plus several cities completely shut down in Inner Mongolia. From northwest to southeast it eventually reach the North China Plain, where few damage has been done. The current title is based on several western media holding Sinocentric viewpoints and does not respect those who passed away in the sandstorm enough. With referring to Mongolian and Chinese media we can get a more globalized view but right now the title should be changed. Nomads' lives matter. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support it's not just North China where this happened. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly support per Joseph2302, Fiddle Faddle, and 173.68.165.114 - Being the creator of this article, yes its true actually that it is not just China or Beijing that was just happened. To be honest, I'm not a professional article writer I just made my first article after a short reviewing process (actually Polar Storm is my very first article I created on August 2019; albeit without submitting my draft for reviewing process). So I will rename it, but the problem is I do not know how to close this discussion so I will allow any of you to rename this article to 2021 Mongolian Plateau sandstorm and then this discussion is over after that. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• ROBLOXGamingDavid, closing, now it is a requested move, and also moving, these should only happen after the formal seven days have elapsed. The close should be performed by anyone not involved. While I only reviewed the draft I am sufficiently involved to recuse myself from closing it.

There is nothing urgent about this, nothing is ever that urgent on Wikipedia. Let it run, take more opinions, improve the article and references, and watch the discussion with interest. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Timtrent Ok. So we wait for until a week, let them speak about more opinions, statements, and requests... (Sorry i m not a professional) ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  ROBLOXGamingDavid, All folk here are volunteers, my friend. We wait for the end of the period, and consensus will prevail. WP:ANRFC can be used to request closure.

  As you can see, below, it is already getting complex with suggested new titles. Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As the reviewer who accepted the draft I support whichever title is supported by references. I also tend to remain neutral in discussions about the fate of drafts I've accepted. At the time of acceptance I went with the obvious title as presented to me. The actual eventual title is immaterial because redirects are created on move or can be created today from whichever title to whichever title. So the references are the key. I would expect more comprehensive referencing over the next short period together with some development the article Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to 2021 China and Mongolia sandstorm, because it's not limited to N China, nor to the Mongolian Plateau. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Jim Michael It also seems to be in S Korea now: [1]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes 2021 East Asia sandstorm a better title. Jim Michael (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support using 2021 East Asia sandstorm, as that's more general title for the area now affected. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support for 2021 East Asia sandstorm from me, too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi bold move, but I've moved it to that title since to move to a broader title seems to be agreed upon, with 3 editors supporting the above title, and it doesn't make sense to stick with a title nobody wants. ProcrastinatingReader ::::(talk) 13:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, As it says in the banner on the top of the article, please do not move the article until the discussion is closed. I can't be bothered to revert your move, performed while the discussion was one a very few hours old.

Had the IP user not put the requested move process into motion I would not be commenting upon your move, but they did. It is not a WP:IAR thing. What you have done might even be correct, but there is insufficient consensus for it and it was never urgent in the first place. You coudl simply have used the title you chose as a redirect here. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The move is perfectly normal on current events, especially when there's an apparent consensus. Sticking a RM onto a brand new page where the creator hastily chose a title that was appropriate at time of creation and there's apparent agreement on a new name isn't useful and just means there's a sticky RM notice at the top. There's unanimous agreement the original title was too narrow, and apparent agreement on the current title. The RM should be closed for the time being imo, but I'm not going to do that myself. Until someone comes along and actually disputes the title (and afaics, nobody disputes the title) I don't see an issue here. We don't run processes for the sake of processes. And we shouldn't stick with a title nobody wants for the sake of process, either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - "East Asia" also includes southern part of P. R. China, Taiwan and Japan, but the sandstorm only affects Northern part of China, Mongolia and a small part of Korea. It's still only a small part of East Asia. Is there a better title so that readers won't be misled to feel the whole China have sandstorm? Sun8908 _Talk 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Essentially the major impact zone is the Mongolian Plateau due to desertification of the Eastern Gobi desert steppe led by overpastorialism in Southeast Mongolia. All Chinese cities issued an orange alert either lies in the Plateau (Hohhot, for example) or adjacent to it (Beijing, Yulin, Yinchuan, Zhangjiakou/Halgan are all towns serving agriculture-nomad trades). The core of North China Plain and Korea doesn't suffer as much as those cities, except that they also eat some sands and perhaps getting better soil. A relevant topic might be Inner Asia which effectively covers both Mongolias, Beijing, Yinchuan, etc. but I doubt whether our readers have ideas where Inner Asia is - Mongolian Plateau, a.k.a. is more geographically relevant. East Asia may effectively cover Mongolia, China and Korea so is also an option (much better than "North China"), although a lot of people may forgot Mongolia to be an East Asian country - it's like if a typhoon hits both Guam and Taiwan we can call it an East Asian typhoon as both islands are technically part of East Asia. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mongolian Plateau isn't used by any sources and fails WP:COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

For your first point, Mongolian Plateau is per source 2021_North_China_sandstorm#cite_note-3. For your second point "East Asia" fails WP:COMMONNAME in the same way. We are facing a field almost untouched by English media - most of which cover only a part of this sandstorm (say, North China, South Korea, Mongolia, etc.) so unless we want to split this article into three (or more) there's no established usage to refer. By the way I said "East Asia" is definitely better than "North China" before and I personally have no problem with your provisional move of this article (except that an adjective form "Asian" is preferred). --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite 3 is the NPR source which doesn't say "Mongolian Plateau". East Asia is recognisable to most people. "Mongolian Plateau" is not. It's probably the most technically accurate descriptor, but it's not recognisable (+ the sources focus on the effects and affected locations, not the origin much). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite 3 has been changed later to cite 4 when a new cite 2 inserted. It's here: finance.eastmoney.com/a/202103161845756827.html

Most people won't be sure about the exact boundary of the Mongolian Plateau, but most knows "Mongolian" points to an area on the north of Beijing, south of Siberia and east of Central Asia - thus acquiring a more accurate idea of the major affected area of Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and adjacent area without necessity of point out where Inner Mongolia is. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. To be honest it's much easier to name it in Chinese, as everyone is clear that Mongolia, the state, is only part of Mongolia, just like Ireland, the republic, is only part of Ireland and Macedonia, the FYROM, is only part of Macedonia. However, in English, most people don't care anything outside Europe plus the five eyes and lacks a globalized world view for articles like this. One English candidate might be "2021 Gobi sandstorm" but that's also problematic, because gobi, as a Mongolian word, is used by few Mongols (for example people in Ulaanbaatar who are far away from the desert) to refer to deserts in general, while Mongols living close to the "Gobi Desert" the English concept of "Gobi Desert" doesn't exist - gobi can either refer to a specific kinds of desert with few sands or as a proper noun refer to a much narrower geographic area. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The title has been moved back to where it was when this request was begun. At least one editor has noted that "East Asia" is too broad a concept for the area covered by the sandstorm. That is precisely why these move requests, once opened, should stay open for at least the minimum time, so all editors who want to can either support or oppose the request. Under such controversy as noted above, this request should stay open for at least seven days. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Saying that the sandstorm occurred in E Asia doesn't say/imply that it affected that whole region. The current name incorrectly portrays it as having only affected N China. Jim Michael (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Point well-taken. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to East Asia sandstorm There's not much to say, the event affected more than just North China or the Mongolian Plateau. I think a speedy move would be appropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:11, 18 March 2021 (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.

NASA disinformation

The problematic disinformation map

I removed the map File:East Asia sandstorm NASA (annotated).jpg because it contains very bad disinformation. The arrow marked were basically perpendicular to the correct sandstorm develop direction and the wind direction. For a profession academic organization it is awkward for them to make a low-level mistake like this. We cannot use this kind of disinformation map as it is not only an insult on the ten lost lives in the storm (if the wind were developing that way there was no point professional experienced nomads couldn't handle it) but an insult on the sands as well (the Central gobi in Ejin Banner/Gansu doesn't have as much free sands to feed this. These mighty sands can only come from a free-dune deserts rather than gobis).

gobi

desert

Please feel free to readd it if correct annotations are added and misinformation is removed. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I also don't understand why people put the Mongolian nomad lives in sideline, as if people in China and Korea eating some sands if more crucial than 10 lost lives? I'll reorganized this article in a sandstorm developement order before it get POV again. Based on the wind direction, the sandstrom has to pass through North Korea to reach South Korea, but before we have sources I have no problem leaving North Korea blank for now or not. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

NASA has issued no corrections still and states the image is acquired from their satellite. The same map is used by other WP:RSP reliable sources, such as The Conversation. Unless there's some kind of source disputing it as problematic, or some correction is issued saying there's a problem, I don't really think it can be discounted on the basis of original research. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Of course the satellite image was real (I never said it wasn't). The problematic one is the arrow. NASA claimed it "appears to originate from the Taklamakan Desert", while Xinhua claims it comes from the desert steppe in the Mongolian Plateau. The two contradictory claim is against each other and at most one can be real. The latter is confirmed by international wind data (can be accessed from zoom.earth, etc.), and gave a lot of details how it was developed; while the former is confirmed by no data and provides no detail. Are we going to trust one with no detail confirmed by nobody instead of one with all detail confirmed by all data and call any supporter of the latter "original research"? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, NASA seems like an RS to me. I guess you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones to see if others share your assessment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

According to Sputnik, Russian embassy said that North Korea banned diplomats from entering Pyongyang that day due to the sandstorm. There seems to be an ongoing dispute between Englishpedia and Sputnik yet I forgot where to check the current policy of English Wikipedia (there was a page), but even if we assume bad faith on Sputnik I don't think it makes sense to assume Sputnik makes rumor on the Russian embassy, not to mention that whatever disinformation Sputnik might had before could it be as bad as the above NASA disinformation? I think it's better to add that source as we are only using the words of Russian embassy to say North Korea is also a part of the affected area. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

end date. when will this storm ends? ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)