Talk:Kyzyl-Agash Dam failure

Death toll

I have no any official source but witnesses who visited the village after the disaster - they say more than 300 dead bodies were found. 37 dead is official version. Goverment hides the trith as always in our country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.47.199.28 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We can only report what the sources say, I'm afraid. I'll have a look at some of the news articles to see if they have any more information on the death toll but that kind of thing can;t be added to the article unless someone else publishes it first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look to try and confirm this, could only find figures in the mid 30s a couple of hours ago. Is there perhaps a quotable but not fully reliable source for a comment along the lines of "official sources state... but it has been reported by... that the real figure is much higher" - again I couldn't find anything in English. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That was the same conclusion I came to when I wrote the article and it's what I've just found in a quick search. I can't read anything not in English, though, so it could be possible that it's being reported in local sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just above an editor has written "We can only report what the sources say". That is not so: we need not say anything, and if as seems to be the case here reports vary then what is reported is not of encyclopedic quality. This article says nothing about the dam itself but seems to be a "get it in quick" news report, carrying the likes of which is not WP's function. Perhaps the article should be renamed ("... disaster" or deleted)--SilasW (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject of article

This article tells us nothing about the dam.. what type, when built &c &c it seems to be a "news article" about a dam disaster.--SilasW (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is me again. Can you accept an opposition newspaper as a relyable source. "Svoboda slova" (Leberty of speech) No. 11 (257) of March 18, 2010, in the article "Tragedy in Kyzyl-Agash" wrote that minimal number of dead was above 200, most of them old people and children. The exact number of dead is impossible to count officially, because it is prohibited by the administration of region and country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.56.73.170 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not, wikipedia is after all supposed to be neutral. A link to an article (assuming it's on the web) would help. I personally would add to the article, after the official figures, saying who reports the higher figure - that way the discrepancy is there for all to see. You can add it yourself, but if you'd rather, one of us can add it for you - the text you've added above could be formatted in this way, e.g.:

Opposition sources report a much higher figure for the death toll, an opposition newspaper Svoboda Slova reports that at least 200 have died, mostly children and old people, but an exact, official count is prohibited by the administration<ref>"Svoboda slova" (Liberty of speech) No. 11 (257), March 18, 2010, "Tragedy in Kyzyl-Agash"</ref>.

By the way, if you add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your message, we will know it's you again, that signs your IP address (or username if logged in) on the end of your message. I would recommend creating an account, it's free and conceals your IP address from most users. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advices. I've made an account and inserted my part of information. This is the first time I edit any WP page. Hope I did everything right. ;) And I am also very thankful for your article and attention. As for technical characteristics of the Kyzyl Agash Dam, I'll try to find them and include here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaisAmaru (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Added "comments" 2 to 4 in this section have nothing to do with the section heading. There has been no information added to the article about the dam itself so I am renaming it "Kyzyl-Agash dam disaster".--SilasW (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the information about the dam as such is minimal (and maybe not notable), then the dam burst should be the focus of the article. Proposing renaming and re-writing with the dam burst as subject. --Kslotte (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Some work done ... still renaming (seems to be move protected) to "Kyzyl-Agash Dam failure" is needed. What do other think? --Kslotte (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kyzyl-Agash Dam failure. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_voEzPqVAaGf-zOCXEZNGmRUKrA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestatesmen.net/news/thousands-evacuated-after-severe-floods-destroyed-two-dams-in-the-south-of-kazakhstan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315085126/http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100313-0000161/Kazakhstan-flooding-death-toll-rises-to-30-as-recovery-efforts-pick-up-pace to http://www.todayonline.com/BreakingNews/EDC100313-0000161/Kazakhstan-flooding-death-toll-rises-to-30-as-recovery-efforts-pick-up-pace

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: 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) 00:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it was this Bot's formatting changes which have caused 2 references to appear with the title "Archived copy" instead of the actual title. I there a way to fix this? ˜˜˜˜ "Pij" (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)