Talk:1994 Karamay fire

Neutrality of the "Controversy" section
This short article focused a lot on the controversial claim that some survivor said "a female official immediately stood up and shouted: "Students sit down; don’t move. Let the leaders walk out first" without full description of this event itself. There's not enough fact supporting that it actually happened, and even less fact supporting that shouting "Let leaders walk out first" had any impact on the outcome of this event (whereas the article seems to be presenting it as one of the main reason of the disaster, by omitting full description of the event, and disputes about this claim) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.24.144.244 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese Wikipedia also stated that it is not confirmed yet.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the main contributors of the Chinese Wikipedia article. I didn't write the English article and I'm not gonna defend it. But you should know "let leader go first" is hugely important in the aftermath of this disaster. Many survivors said they heard it while many survivors denied. In the verdict, the court didn't detail "leader first" but did suggest some leaders abandoned the students and escaped by themselves. No matter it was said or not, "leader first" is like a meme that is bound to this disaster, it's kind of a symbol, or another name for the disaster or something. In the Chinese Wikipedia article, the "leader first" section is as lengthy as the "process of the fire" and "casualties" sections combined. | Yes the English article is not well sourced, too short and lack a lot of details. But it's not wrong in presenting the "leader first" controversy which is really famous in China, and should have an important role in this article. | I think moving the "leader first" section under "aftermath" section might be a good solution for the concern it could incorrectly look like a main reason of the outcome. Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've moved "Controversy" section into "Aftermath" section and replaced POV with Refimprove and Expand language. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of 'fluff' in the page
The page uses language like: "Most were the best and brightest pupils in their classes" which is unnessary and removes the sounding of credibility. --SliimmmyyyyCat (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)