Talk:2019 Southeast Asian haze

Differentiating haze affecting Thailand and Indonesia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split this article. Nathanielcwm (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The haze in Thailand occurred in the first half of the year. The haze in Indonesia is occurring now. They are two separate issues and should not be combined. We need to make this clearer. starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree ! Night Lantern^halo? 05:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree per Starship.paint --TILRs (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree per Starship.paint Dhio-270599 06:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree per Starship.paint. Maybe one page that says March 2019 Haze and another on the current haze? TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Disagree as both hazes related to the same concept of a 2019 Southeast Asian Haze. Both are also as a result of air pollution. waddie96 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: is it possible that both these hazes relate to the same concept of a 2019 Southeast Asian Haze—also, both hazes are as a result of wildfires causing air pollution? waddie96 (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: What about, per Starship.paint's comment, 2019 Thailand Haze and 2019 Indonesian Haze, or at least something like that? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: A little bit subjective to say "Indonesian haze" as the haze affected many countries other than Indonesia. Would a name like 2019 First Southeast Asian haze and 2019 Second Southeast Asian haze do? That's the best I could think of. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, I had that concern as well and you're right. Maybe, however, we should just keep things as they are, since if we cannot think of a fitting name for each new article, I'm not sure we should split up this article into articles with unusual titles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think we shouldn't split the articles for now, cause it may create flaws that make the articles hard to read. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to simply explain this in the lead and have two Heading 1s that split the article in two, until such time that the article is large enough to warrant a split? waddie96 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That'll be much clearer. Cause actually, the March 2019 haze and the current haze situation are two different events in Southeast Asia, but I don't think it will be very neat to split both haze situations. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Haze by its nature doesn't have sharp boundaries in space or time. However, the dry season in Thailand occurs at a different time of year from the dry season in Indonesia, so the events are distinct. Also, there is very vague info on this page about the perps and motivations for the Thailand fires, in contrast to some clear references to palm oil plantations in Indonesia. Separating makes sense. OTOH, there is already an SE Asia article about the 2015 haze.Martindo (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree per Starship.paint. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 23:31, 4 February 2020 (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.

Who is responsible?

There is an unfortunate tendency for shallow news articles to perpetuate the myth that indigenous slash-and-burn farmers are responsible for pollution. Various environmental NGOs disproved this decades ago.

In the case of the Indonesian fires, there are so-called smallholding stakeholders who apparently perform the dirty work and then plant oil palms on behalf of big companies who buy from them. Although palm oil is considered a staple food (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sembilan_bahan_pokok) in Indonesia, it is not a subsistence crop. You don't see people with 1 or 2 palms in their yard harvesting oil for their home use. It's a cash crop; make no mistake about it.

If you fly over Sumatra, you see huge swaths of plantations -- more than a few minutes of flying time. The fact that there is such a contiguous area suggests large-scale planning of the activity by a big industry. In the past, some national forests were declared "degraded" and thus fully open to exploitation.

TV news here in Indonesia noted around Sept 20 that 296 individuals and 9 companies have been accused of setting the forest fires. The companies are probably NOT smallholding stakeholders, but the large number of individuals implies that subcontractors are also being blamed. Whether anyone is prosecuted is another story.

The situation is a bit like conspiracy to commit murder: someone gives an order explicitly or tacitly, and courts consider that participant culpable along with the person who physically committed the crime. So let's look for sources that dig a little deeper into who is being accused and why the government considers them culpable.

BTW, Borneo is the name of the island. Using "Kalimantan" in general should be clarified with a phrase such as "the Kalimantan provinces in Indonesia".Martindo (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Martindo:How 'bout you edit this page to reflect your ideas? Be bold! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Barad-dûr is real?!

Tell me I'm not the only one who thinks Jam Gadang shrouded in haze bears a striking resemblance to the Sauron's Dark Tower minus one glowing eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.140.2 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to derail, but this image (Kabut_Jam_Gadang_2019.jpg) does remind me of the Orthanc, it's so obvious. See also: Borobudur.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition of bolded title

There was an invisible comment before the article introduction, which read as follows: "Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, the lead does not contain the article's title. Additionally, no text is displayed in bold." I believe that the bolding of the article title here should be included, considering that it doesn't violate the guidelines listed in MOS:BOLDTITLE for when boldface shouldn't be used. It also doesn't fit the criteria set in WP:SBE - the addition of the article's title in bold doesn't sound (to me at least) awkward or superfluous. Adding on to that, the pages for other years of the Southeast Asian haze seem to all have the article title in bold, so what I've done at least standardises it. RGuy02 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This has the exact same issue as the 2011 Mississippi River floods example under MOS:BOLDAVOID. A lot of other articles failing to follow the manual of style is more due to ignorance of editors and reason to fix those articles rather than break that which is already correct. If you believe the MOS doesn't reflect consensus, it would be better to start a discussion there to have the point repealed first, then edit articles accordingly. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)