Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Chinese Taipei

It says Chinese Taipei is one of the countries affected, changed it to say Taiwan instead of Chinese Taipei--Kenbei (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be ROC, but Taiwan is more correct than Chinese Taipei, which is only for use in intl organizations of which the ROC (and PRC, natch) is a member. English Wikipedia does not qualify. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Using Taiwan may be misleading, because it should be "countries and regions affected" if you intend to put taiwan into some equal position with countries like Thai, Burma and China.Helloterran (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The "ROC" is a country, whether or not you recognize it, and "Taiwan" is the common English term for the ROC. If you really don't think it is a country, then why are you even bothering to list it as Chinese Taipei, which as stated above is only used in intl organization of which it (and the PRC) are members? That does not apply here. This is no place for politics. This is an encyclopedia. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not use NPOV terms like mainland and Taiwan instead of political terms?--Skyfiler (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan?

The article lists countries as far away as Nepal and Pakistan as being affected by the earthquake, but not Bhutan. Would it be reasonable to assume that Bhutan was affected too, since it's in the circle on the map and Pakistan isn't? Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's
original research. EgraS (talk
) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

India?

Can you explain me how an earthquake can reach to Bangladesh from an epicenter which is China, without passing through India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marudhaan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A mention of a country that has been affected is only added when there is a reliable source that says so. --Joowwww (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

remove "places affected"

The original author has no source to back up the statement about the order and timing in which different countries felt the shake. And the listing of the countries/regions have already been given in the infobox. So I don't see why this section should be there before anybody can come up with some more useful information. Unless anybody has a good reason why it should not be deleted, I am removing it. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I add some source which release from Xinhua press, maybe there will be some other source will be release from western tomorrow.I think it should be hold--Prinz.W (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is to stay, then the 'aftershocks were felt approximately x minutes after' bit needs to be changed as it is depicting the wrong thing, as the aftershocks so far wouldn't have been big enough to be felt over as large an area as the main quake. An aftershock is of course a small earthquake that occurs in the same region as an earlier larger quake, whereas here it is using the term to represent how far the shaking of the main quake was felt, which would not be correct. RapidR (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats another good point that I didn't even notice. Again, solid sources will be required to back up the statement that would otherwise provide misleading information. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

7.8 or 7.9?

the Magnitude is 7.8 or 7.9? According to Xinhua press release that the Magnitude is 7.8 . Does the USGS said it is 7.9? if it is so ,i think it should state separately.--Prinz.W (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The USGS is probably the best source to use here. I have no doubt that the news agencies will eventually update their magnitudes but they are down the line from the USGS. I can't find the official pages for the Chinese Seismology Bureaus, but if they listed a different number, then I'd consider it. But the USGS is definitely the best source in this situation. Calculating a moment magnitude is not as simple as a simple Richter scale measurement. Plus, in the Xinghua news releases that I've seen, it still refers to it as a "Richter scale" measurement when they're clearly reporting the moment magnitude which casts a huge doubt on their accuracy on this matter. Sasquatch t|c 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the offical website of Chinese Seismology Bureaus [1] "2008-05-12 14:28:04.1 30.95 103.40 33 Ms7.8 四川汶川县 " This webpage is the auto-release seismology information page ,therefore the page only conserve in 7days (= =)--Prinz.W (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

7.8 Ms(State Seismological Bureau of China) and 7.9 Mw(USGS) "Other more recent magnitude measurements include: ...... surface wave magnitude (Ms).... Each of these is scaled to give values similar to those given by the local magnitude scale; but because each is based on a measurement of one aspect of the seismogram, they do not always capture the overall power of the source. " "In particular, for very large earthquakes moment magnitude gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi. I have some questions about this that may also help in the improvement of the article.

  • Is it normal for earthquakes of this magnitude to be experienced over such a large area?
Yes, it is normal for an earthquake of this size to be felt over a very large area. The depth of the quakes origin in the crust and the type of rock in the area also have an influence. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why was this earthquake not forecast in advance (a Chinese earthquake in 1974, for example, was forecast and the only person that died was a man that died from a heart attack)?
There DID exist some animal disturb in China. e.g. Huge number of toad immigrate on roads, and some civil forcast on www but no one really noticed that. There a many civil freak forcasters every year in China. See this forcast post has over 145127 replies now. He said in 2008-5-9 said there will be M 6+ earthquake happen in 3 days (OMG OMG) --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Earthquakes in general can not be forecast, experts can sometimes say that a large earthquake of a certain size may happen in an area at some point but can not say when. The successfully predicted 1975 event was preceded in the short term by a mix of unusual events including strange animal behaviour, abnormal air temperature and water levels that led to the evacuation of the city. Most large earthquakes may well be preceded by unusual events, but its not closely monitored enough to be sure of the need for an evacuation. See the article on earthquake prediction for more info. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see, he was using
U
) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How close is this quake to the geograhpical centre of the PRC (land only)?
You can measure this on Google Earth using USGS's KML file http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/shakemap/global/shake/2008ryan/download/2008ryan.kml --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. ~

U
) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty cool that China can get their (ahem!) in gear for rescue efforts - whereas we poor Americans fail miserably at rescue attempts after a major natural disaster like hurricane Katrina. Maybe Americans are better off in China.  :) Coolsnak3 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsnak3 (talk • contribs)

Verbatim Quotes

Taking original material verbatim from someone else requires the use of quotes. It doesn't matter if it's public domain. Rewrite it if you wish to dispense with quotes. Tmangray (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If it's public domain note that in a footnote but there is no need to waste energy rewriting perfectly good text if there is no legal reason to do so. Wikipedia has a long tradition of incorporating PD sources, quote-free (see
talk
) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken. That's called plagiarism, and Wikipedia definitely does not endorse that. It's also laziness. The quotes must remain until and when someone wishes to draft something more original. Tmangray (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. Wikipedia has long done this and many of its articles are based on the 1911 Britannica, which is appropriately attributed in relevant footnotes. Would you suggest we retake public domain images from US agencies as well? The whole point of the public domain is that it can be freely reused without modification. Take this to the village pump if you doubt wikipedia policy on this point.
talk
) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

News blocked in China?

That is totally false. I have relatives staying in China and I called in to ask if they were ok. They said CCTV has this event all over the news. Either I misread that to mean something else or something is wrong. 68.94.114.250 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It actually means that the rumours relating to an earthquake prediction were blocked, not the actual news itself, and definately not the CCTV station that was blocked. Thanks. ~
U
) 01:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clearing it up. :-) 68.94.114.250 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out http://news.hexun.com/2008-05-13/105916960.html. That page cites the rumor report from The Beijing News, a Beijing based newspaper. Helloterran (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Here is a Chinese-language page with some photos. I can't read the text. http://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2008-05/12/content_8151518.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.178 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are images of damage available? Images of damage should be included. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

check this url: http://news.sina.com.cn/z/photo/06/08earthquake/index.shtml --LiDaobing (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Due to wiki's copyright policy we can hardly expect any image from near the epicenter.Helloterran (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Images of Premier Wen http://news.sohu.com/20080513/n256818270.shtml Yuanyelele (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Should Hong Kong's goverment's concerned about the earthquake placed in "International reaction"

Hong Kong is not a country,but they are not same goverment.

reaction is a Press Release:

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SARG) is very concerned about the serious earthquake in Sichuan today (May 12).

The SARG will closely monitor the latest earthquake developments and will make a prompt and proper response, and render all possible assistance according to the situation to help with the disaster relief work on the Mainland.

(From http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200805/12/P200805120216.htm) --Ats10802 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. Princeton's WordNet defines a nation as "A politically organized body of people under a single government" on the first entry. If you want to go by English definition, it may be interpreted either as appropriate or inappropriate, depending on bias. If you want to go by the Peoples Republic of China definition, then it may be inappropriate. The answer is ambiguous depending on which disposition is selected.
I would also like to highlight the fact that this earthquake was not limited to China. It affected (albeit minor) a number of sovereign nations, including
Burma, India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam.   — C M B J
   08:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "International" may not be the right term, Hong Kong SAR is administratively independent, but it is politically belongs to PRC. May we change the term into "Reaction from outside bodies"? GunRock (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "Global reaction"?   — C M B J   09:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "Global reaction" is a good choice, it may further alleviate the endless argument of Taiwan vs ROC vs PRC vs China. If nobody oppose within an hour, I will change the term. GunRock (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. It should allow for thorough elaboration whilst maintaining a level of neutrality for all said parties.   — C M B J   09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Hong Kong is a part of the PRC. It says so in Hong Kong's constitution (the Basic Law): Chapter 1, Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." If the government of Jiangsu Province said it was concerned about the earthquake, would that be a "global reaction"? --Joowwww (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Texas is a part of the United States. If Texas sent aid to Washington D.C., it could be considered by logic to be a global reaction. Global does not necessarily imply domestic or foreign.   — C M B J   10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't think it would be described as "global", more "national", and foreign countries as "international". The term "global" connotes "worldwide" and therefore, "international". See Hurricane Katrina, no US states are listed under "international", however they are listed under "government response", therefore, "national". --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely it is, but "global reaction" can have the translation in Chinese which literally means "Reaction from all around", so of course you can list anybody from Lisbon to Jiangsu into it, further, it is convention and officially permitted to say that Hong Kong a "境外" (literally "outside") place. I think list Hong Kong in the "Global reaction" is an acceptable way and it can further accomodate other outside bodies such as Taiwan, Macau and other NGOs to resident in without drastic debate, and it is a now a official way to avoid conflict of both PRC and ROC government by "模糊化" (literrally "blurring") policy. GunRock (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the Chinese Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia, and the English meaning of the word "global" means "international" when dealing with response to natural disasters. --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggest "Reaction outside mainland China" Readin (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While I think "global" is neutral enough, I went ahead and changed it to "Reaction outside mainland China" because it is widely regarded as NPOV. The only real problem with it is awkwardness. Readin (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How about "Responses from other nations"? Secretliker (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Misses the point of the original debate viz. Hong Kong is/is not "global". 74.94.101.116 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am warming up to can the whole section, because it doesn't add anything and makes an already very long article needlessly longer. So, I think the point will shortly be moot. Yunfeng (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction should not be canned. All major events notable to make it to the Wikipedia Main Page has an "International Reaction" section. --haha169 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not every. GunRock (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumping ref

Here is a link to an earthquake of 4.3 magnitude epicentred at Arunachal Pradesh just south-west of Sichuan less than 48 hours before the event. Couldn't find any technical connnection between the two and hence dumping on the talk page. Am putting up the ref on the talk page for anybody else who might be able to find such a relation, if it exists. Prashanthns (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The only relation is that they are both ultimately caused by India smashing up into Asia's underbelly. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dam very close to epicenter

On Google Maps I discovered a dam just 20 km from the epicenter. Does anybody know, what happened to it? Here you can read more about it. Ansiwen (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That is
Dujiang Yan, which was build some 2,000 years ago. Some ancient temples around it were damaged, but the dam itself is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs
) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, if you take a glance at the google earth image, you can tell the dam is a modern dam. It is actually the 紫坪铺 (Zi Pingpu) reservoir. The dam have no major problem right now, but the reservoir may or may not course trouble later according to some Chinese media. GunRock (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, that is the dam. According to this report, severe cracks have been found and the plant is not operational anymore. And according to a friend of mine another dam "named Tulong Dam is very close to collapse, which might give pressure to downstream dams." Maybe some native Chinese speakers can research this? Ansiwen (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Significance

Earthquakes are both more frequent and have a different cultural significance in China than in the west. Some mention of how this affects current event would be interesting. Lycurgus (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan predicted this EQ?

I saw in baidu forums that Japan predicted this EQ in May. 12 (the post has been deleted). Does any one in Japan saw that prediction? Another question, does US government or other governments offer EQ forecasting service? Pithree (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't predict earthquakes --Joowwww (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure you can... "I predict that an earthquake will occur in California next Friday at 5:23 PM"... ok, my prediction may or may not turn out to be accurate, but I can make the prediction. :>) (and if it does turn out to be accurate, boy will I be able to cash in on the psychic circuit). Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
To be technically precise, you can predict earthquakes. I can predict that some very small-scale earthquake will take place in Japan in the next couple years (or maybe just months). I think this prediction has quite a good chance of turning out to be true. -- Taku (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But china's propaganda says they forecast an earthquake in 1970s, and china's people say a lot that their earthquake bureau derelict their duty before this disaster, because there were a lot of evidences show there may be an earthquake but the bureau take no attention. Pithree (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you show the evidence and lets see if it will help us improve the article, otherwise let me remind you that this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

article predicted the earthquake

An article published in the Journal of catastrophology by Long Xiao Xia (09-2006), College of tourism and environment of Shaanxi Normal University predicted an earthquake of magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008.

(The full article can be downloaded from Wanfang scholar database, but the database is not free. this is the url: http://ilib.cn/A-zhx200603018.html there's no "magnitude above 6.7 in Sichuan-Yunnan area in 2008" in its abstract.) Pithree (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's this one. (Alternative website with longer English abstract) --Voidvector (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, that one is about 2003 or 2004 (2002 + "one or two years in the future") Yaan (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Longmenshan Thrust Zone

Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan, released "Quick Report for Eastern Suchuan Earthquake", which refers to Longmenshan fault (The Longmenshan thrust zone). ( http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/china2008/index_eng.html ) Is there any information about this fault? --miya (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Why we should state the situation of olympic venues but del the circummestance of Sanxia Dam?

As the headline, I believe the Sanxia dam is more closer and easier to effect by the earthquake. I add it twice once but finally totally del. --Prinz.W (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What is it that you added? Can you provide the diff? (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
it is once ,another time maybe not success to edit, the diff is here [2]--Prinz.W (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
First, you should post the change that removed the change, so we don't have to toggle through a hundred changes. Second, it may be that someone reverted it because there are about nine serious English errors in the sentence. This article is pretty much in Chinglish, and your edits aren't helping. Please be more careful. Yunfeng (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we definitely shouldn't. The news to clarify dam situation was put to the highlighting position even on major Chinese news agencies. GunRock (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of English in this article

is very, very bad, and it is going to take a long, long time to fix it. Please, if you can't write English well, restrict yourself to posting items on the talk page and leave it to editors that have better writing skills to incorporate that material. Yunfeng (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you to correct those mistakes instead of grumbling here ,lol. It's possibility a problem that the English level of some editors who from China or non-English speaker, like myself,is developing. Wikipeida is a mass collaboration project, i believe everyone have right to edit if they donot break the law--Prinz.W (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I recommend you stop introducing additional errors into the article so I'll have less work to do when the time comes to cleanup. You should stick to editing Chinese Wikipedia. Yunfeng (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Woah, woah. The man is right, Wiki is a group effort. And we all (supposedly) help each other. If the standard of English is not great, allow those who have a good command of the langugae to improve the existing text, but do not dismiss people from helping by some act of snobbery, which is how, with respect, it sounds to me doktorb wordsdeeds 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) I disagree. We are seeing edits to the article and comments on the talk page that are so mangled as to be almost meaningless. Someone just put a quote (of questionable relevance) from Wen Jiabao into the article in Chinese. Honestly, if you are that much more comfortable writing in Chinese, then you should stick to Chinese Wikipedia and restrict your contributions here to posting helpful links etc on the talk page. Otherwise this article risks becoming (more of) an unintelligible mess. Yunfeng (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This is English Wikipedia, not English-as-a-Second-Language Wikipedia. As a non-native Chinese speaker, I would never consider editing Chinese Wikipedia or demand that they conform to English language conventions; I don't think that it is snobbery to ask Chinese speakers to treat English Wikipedia with the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not be discouraging Chinese speakers. Much of the published information about this event is not in English. Be bold and fix any poor english and quit grumbling. This is a group effort. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should stop complaining and help out. I'm always fixing up problems (especially ref tags) made by new users, and never stop to complain. Some minor grammar and punctuation location problems from Chinese speakers (like me, even though I'm fluent in both languages) is not a major problem. --haha169 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All editors are officially and irrevocably encouraged to edit any article, so long as it is constructive. (
WP:AGF) These Chinese editors allow for us to have an improved scope and coverage of the article, and any English imperfections may simply be corrected by native speakers.   — C M B J
   03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I figure it's better to have poorly written content than to have no content. So long as you write unbiased facts, please keep editing and don't worry if your English isn't perfect. Readin (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

another 18,000 trapped

This is being widely reported in the Western media, e.g. BBC "In one city, Mianyang, near the epicentre, more than 18,000 people are said to be buried under the rubble, state news agency Xinhua reports" - can anyone get a ref to Xinhua's statement?

This info needs adding ASAP. If anyone can word it nicely, go ahead and add it - the original ref can come later--  Chzz  ►  19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a confirmation to the 18000 number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duct tape tricorn (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add and source this article? I'm relatively new and don't know how to source things yet... cheers!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/china.naturaldisasters1

"In Mianyang 60 miles east of the epicentrre, 18,645 people remained buried under debris and survivors spent a second night sleeping outside in the rain, some under striped plastic sheeting strung between trees. The government ordered them not to return home, citing safety concerns, and posted security guards outside apartment complexes to keep people out. At least 4,800 people remained buried in Mianzhu, local authorities said."

Third paragraph into the article.

Duct tape tricorn (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC Video

FYI, there's a suprisingly shocking (for BBC) video here. --  Chzz  ►  22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Another pic?

Anyone fancy putting this pic somewhere? The current pics don't really give a sense of 'where in China', IMHO. --  Chzz  ►  22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rescue efforts

Should this - particularly "China transfers 11,420 soldiers to quake-hit Sichuan" - replace wnd para in 'rescue efforts'? Is it citable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

USGS ogg sound file

Is everyone happy with that addition, in tectonics? Does it work OK, etc? --  Chzz  ►  00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't tried it yet, but I feel it works fine. No need to worry about it. The only taboo you're gonna get is highly superstitious: you added that while this page was facing an IP vandal.--haha169 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mortality rate

This section is inappropriately titled. Mortality rate is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in some population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit time. Mortality rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 1000 individuals per year. This section should be renamed Casualties or similar, and can include injured and missing when known. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Entities?

Is this really necessary? "places" is neural enough. GunRock (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are Chinese Government Officials here, and they dislike having Taiwan along with other "independent" nations. We're being safe and trying to avoid another battleground for Tawain/Chinese politics.--haha169 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No objection to "places". I didn't notice that.Helloterran (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But I'd like to remind you that this is still potentially misleading, I recommend using China mainland and Taiwan, if they must be put into the same part.Helloterran (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And I'd like to remind you that in the English speaking world, there is nothing misleading about saying "China" for the PRC and "Taiwan" for the ROC. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And once again I'd like to remind all the Chinese on here that this *is* English Wikipedia. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do what you wish. I'm not particularly interested in arguing after a hard 2 weeks forcing a failed FAC. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this article and discussion about the earthquakes and its effects, not about the status of Taiwan. I've just edited it so Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, the U.S., Japan, etc. are all listed at the same level in alphabetical order (except for mainland China which is first). If you want to think Taiwan is part of China, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level and in the same way as Hong Kong and Macau. If you want to think Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation, you'll be happy to see it is listed at the same level as the U.S. and Japan. Please leave it that way. The status of Taiwan isn't what this article is about. Readin (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, that arrangement is the one of the many that have already been tried. The PRC folks will not be satisfied until Taiwan is deprecated. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake details

I suggest we all keep an eye out for any future changes, and if necessary, seek protection. 24.222.211.65 (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten all kinds of NSFW stuff splashed across my watch page. Any way to get rid of that? Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that occasional vandalism of this page has continued. Can we get it protected? Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this was vandalism or an accident, but the cite (140) in the "Media" section about "Liaoning Girl" is about Tibet, not about the "Liaoning Girl" or the earthquake. --76.83.24.57 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted two separate instances of vandalism where large bodies of text were deleted and replaced with obvious joke messages. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Major aftershocks

On May 25th 2008 4:21 p.m an aftershock of 5.8 magnitude occurred. While one death was reported, 70,000 homes collapsed. 69 dams are said to be at risk of collapsing. The location of the aftershock at 32.587°N, 105.424°E was more than 200 kilometers from the epicenter of the May 12th tremor in the Sichuan-Gansu border region about 40 km WNW of Guangyuan, Sichuan, China. This was preceded by an 5.2 magnitude aftershock 35 km further southwest on May 20th at 01:52:33 AM at 32.233°N, 105.035°E. Such shocks were predicted by the USGS as the original earthquake transferred strain north eastward from the site of the original tremor.

[3] [4] [5] [6] Pdeitiker (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Disinfection

The disinfection image does not belong in "reactions" - it is not a social reaction of any kind. I propose it moved to "rescue effort" or somewhere else. Benlisquare (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, a little more in-text explanation is required -- why are *cars* being disinfected before they enter the EQ zone? Sounds very odd to me. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's because for some reason, average Chinese often seems to over-rely on chemicals to solve problems. The overuse of MSG at Chinese restaurants is a similar phenomenon. It's a weird phenomenon if you think about how some Chinese companies have produced a large batch of contaminated products, but it seems to be that, workers believe that "good" materials will somehow cancel out "bad" materials regardless of whether it's scientifically plausible or not. So in this case, the "good" (disinfectant) is being overused in the hope that it will cancel out "bad" (not only disease, but likely aftershocks and even social unrest as well). It can be considered a propaganda to show that officials are doing something as well. It's not a bad idea by itself, as it can function as a social placebo, but overuse it and you get a cynical population who refuse to believe even actually effective solutions. --Revth (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

reactions within China

This section needs some serious clean-up work. There is a significant amount of redundant information whose sole purpose is to show how seriously Chinese people and media took the disaster, e.g. mourning day change for major websites. Other information either lacks notability outside China mainland, e.g. a whole paragraph is dedicated to CCTV's donation event with only one source, or is only loosely relevant, e.g. before my latest edit, there was even something like "Faye Wong performed a song during the donation event". (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

er... incase you haven't realised, CCTV is the ONLY source for that event... 122.106.52.128 (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And because it is the only source, it is therefore un-notable according to wiki-guidelines. --haha169 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because it is the only primary source, ie. the CCTV station's own program, owned by the government, doesn't mean the other Chinese media companies don't count =p They have reported it extensively as well. 122.106.52.19 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Signs and Predictions attracting nuts

The Signs and Predictions section continues to attract outlandish claims. In the past 24 hrs I have twice reverted edits that included a claim by the infamously crazy Lyndon LaRouche about how the US has created earthquake generating weapons. Everyone, please be on the look-out for such garbage. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted for those not familiar with LaRouche and his followers, that their tenaciousness is legend. We should be prepared for numerous attempts by various IPs and accts to continue to include this ridiculous info. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I found the part regarding Lyndon LaRouche's claim is pretty funny. Are there any truth to it? Speaker1978 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who User:Excirial is, but I do know that he hasn't spent any time editing this article, and he doesn't know wtf he is talking about here. The question isn't one of a factual dispute. We've allowed the pseudo-science of the EQ clouds stand for awhile. The question is whether the ravings of a crazy man who has no expertise in anything even remotely connected to EQ and unsourced info about the Russian Fed should be included. The answer is obviously no. I'm using my third revert, and I ask User:Excirial to spend some time getting up to speed on what the issues are before he molests this page again. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Excirial add this part into LaRouche page, rather than adding to this earthquake page, unless you can find another source who says the samething.Speaker1978 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If people are inserting such POV and unsourced things, revert it. In fact, if I remember correctly, it's a
U
) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, can someone point me to the diff in question? Also, IMO the info about earthquake clouds and lights should be included in the article, because apparently they were indeed observed, but "luminous clouds phenomenon" as its own subsection is not nessecary. However, I don't think this is that serious, but if people are inserting conspiracy theories that are unsourced and destroy the accuracy of the article (earthquake clouds and lights are not conspiracy), it should be removed. Thanks. ~
U
) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My initial reversion is here [7]. Note that there are three issues regarding the revert: 1) whether EQ clouds deserves its own subsection. I disagree. 2) whether the section "Signs and Predictions" should be renamed "Controversies". I disagree, because it is not accurate. 3) whether the comments by larouche and the purported comment by the Russian fed belongs in the EQ cloud subsection (I disagree) or anywhere in the article (I strongly disagree).

Table with similar earthquakes

Consider adding a section with a table listing earthquakes with same Mw with the dates, casualty numbers and so on. The thing might help with better linking of articles--

Ч
) 09:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

see example I created here:
Ч
) 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't need that here. There is already an article known as List of earthquakes in Sichuan (something like that), and we have a section called, See also. --haha169 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is just not needed in this instance. EgraS (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

current event?

Isnt' this still a current event? Rescue efforts, evacuation efforts, the quake lakes, that's still new news. 70.51.10.126 (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming rarer and rarer. The amount of edits on this article is becoming less and less per day. There are less news broadcasts about this in recent days, and it is not seen on TV anymore, at all. Its already been 3 weeks since the event. --haha169 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? I've seen it on every national newscast, and CNN covers the quake lake danger quite often. 70.51.11.207 (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I've never watched American Idol before, but I know every aspect of it now because that's the ONLY thing that CNN cares about recently. Never any earthquake stuff... --haha169 (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Western Media won't mention that so many Qiang People died in this disaster!

Beichuan, the worst striken city, is a city where Qiang People compromise over 50% of its population. Qiang People is a nation closely related to TIBETAN people! Not mention that many tibetans died in another city, Aba, as well!

What would be the importance of mentioning those? Did the Chinese media release any number yet? If the Chinese media hasn't released any, how would the western media know. Plus we have a total number of death, as Chinese, there is no reason to mention which minority died what number. I don't remember American media focus on Black people being killed in Katrina? Speaker1978 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The western people won't mention the high proportion of Qiang people because most westerners (myself included and I know more about China than the majority of westerners) don't know what is meant by "Qiang people". As for the number of Tibetans, why is it important to distinguish the dead by their race? Readin (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be that China's government has systematically deprived the Qiang people of benefits, such as EQ-proof schools, while other ethnic groups get better accomodations. Sort of like how do we handle news about blacks in the U.S. not being able to get anything but substandard schools, teachers, etc. etc. It's a question of whether racial/ethnic persecution is happening.Friendly Person (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt western media like ccn bbc etc intend to overlook the fact. They may have the intention to tell western people that: look, those CHinese got earthquake! In some sense, ccn bbc etc are just a bunch of sharon stones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anisomycin (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Old Buildings"

This article quotes only two experts that imply and/or say that the collapsed buildings were old, even though many of these buildings weren't old (most certainly not pre-Tangshan). What these experts don't seem to understand is that Chinese architecture is very often so aesthetically rudimentary and spartan that most buildings outside a very small handful of cities have an old *look* even if they were built today. This false and irresponsible assumption of "old buildings" from most of the "western" media is extremely harmful to the people of China and entirely counterproductive -- it has the potential of prolonging the widespread corruption of China's construction and development sectors, which in turn could cause more untold suffering.

As of June 4, there have been plenty of voices (including local and foreign reporters, and even members of the rescue teams) expressing their dismay at the shoddy construction of many (perhaps most) of the buildings that collapsed. Quite a few buildings had steel beams that were about the diameter of a pen, in obvious violation of regulation. During the last week or so, there have been numerous protests inside China from grieving parents. The latest large protest was forcibly dispersed by police just yesterday.

Please, the relevant section of this article *must* be revised. Otherwise, the article implies a deep bias.

Before going into the problem, I hope that you can sign your name after giving your opinion even you are using your IP address next time. It is not the problem of how many experts coming out and saying the buildins are old or not, it is the true fact: the schools, especially, are the easiest to be fallen down during the earthquake. This is not related to what you have said the "Chinese architecture". Moreover, news reoport say that some schools, which are built according to the government's standard, didn't fall down quickly or even not being affected, by comparing to schools that only have steel beams. It is no longer the problem of misunderstanding Chinese architecture, but just the problem of the school owners who wants to save the cost. Addaick (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. Do not assume that the article implies bias unless you have researched both sides thoroughly. Through my understanding, in one of the cities in which a private school fell, every other building in the entire city remained standing (including 2 other schools owned by the same principal). The CNN reporter walked up to the collapsed school building and filmed steel wires only 3 inches thick - they were supposed to keep the building up. Really, it depends on your point of view. Wikipedia is after verifiability, and free media such as CNN and BBC are more reliable than state-controlled media such as Xinhua, and even worse, Sichuan government office reports.
(Especially after "police forcibly dispersed parent protesters"?) Don't get me wrong...I dislike people arguing about China's human rights abuses-and I am certain China will only get better over time, like South Korea and Taiwan. However, when it comes to parents and their children, China simply has no right to do something like this. But anyways, back on topic, on Wikipedia, verifiability first.--haha169 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoever the Anon poster is, he is posting from the "CHINANET Sichuan province network" according to a whois look-up on his IP, FWIW. Please, by all means add info about the schools collapsing; not only is it quite notable, but my sense is that that issue will continue to garner increasing attention. When I get the time, I plan on creating a section on "EQ Preparedness in Sichuan", and intend to include that as a subsection. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, 68.73.94.131. I don't quite know what you mean. Addaick (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe you'd care to be just a tad more specific about what you don't understand? (And next time you want to know where I'm posting from, per your comment on my talk page, do a whois on the IP#.) 68.73.94.131 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Research both sides thoroughly?! I've been *living* in Sichuan for nearly a decade and I have easy access to both sides of the story (including Chinese and "west")! I even have an architect friend from Iceland who happens to be deeply involved in the construction business here in Sichuan and he's seen it all. Some of you folks don't have any idea about architecture in China or the corruption that goes along with new or relatively recent projects, especially in underdeveloped parts of the country. All it takes is a couple of weeks of careful observation in the interior of the country to figure out that new or recent buldings look like they were built two or three decades ago, hence the ill-founded assumptions that these "experts" made, and that many are not up to code. Yes, most of these collapsed buildings were not old. The building where I'm staying right now almost certainly would not hold up in a quake 6.5+ in the Richter, yet it was built less than 20 years ago! That's way after Tangshan! By the way, this building is inside a school campus (although I don't work here; my wife does). And that's just one example out of countless others I can give... 90% of the people that died did not have to die. This was mostly a man-made disaster. Before I forget, here is the link regarding the protest that the police broke up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake;_ylt=Aixq6CJ4bWTFpsoaHD2O4Ar9xg8F
Some of the parents were dragged away, by the way. There were some pictures in an earlier version of the article...
I don't know why my IP didn't show... Hopefully, it will show up now. I have nothing to hide. arcueil (a long-time resident in China, from the USA)
I'll post more relevant links here from time to time (arcueil):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080604/wl_nm/quake_dc_92
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake_528 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.215.89.112 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the editor knows or doesn't know. Its about verifiability. So I appreciate those links at the end. Good. --haha169 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll post more as time permits. There were many links I should have posted long ago; this problem was obvious to many people here in China and there has been plenty of reporting on it from the NY Times, Reuters, AP, other western media, and also local media. I really should have posted them... arcueil
OK, here is the one link I was waiting for:
Experts: Poor Construction in China Quake Area
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake_539
This is from AP and it is about reports by the Chinese inspectors themselves. If this is not enough to revise the section that *needs* revision, I don't know what is! I'm sure that more and more information will come out in the near future.
arcueil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.166.166.142 (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080609/ts_nm/quake_schools_dc_1 (arcueil) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.215.88.151 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake_596 (arcueil) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.215.91.64 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake_4 (arcueil) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.166.168.181 (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

online videos

After the mourning period, videos appeared on youku and todou (chinese youtube variants), with people swearing and cussing at the quake victims, because of the mourning period (there was no entertainment on TV for three days). I can't recall the exact link as of yet (try searching?). Should this be included? Benlisquare (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found one of the many videos from different people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdWj35Dg5g Benlisquare (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Signs and Predictions

It's good that signs & predictions admits that basically no one has ever predicted one, but it should also point out two things :

  1. scientists are able to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the possible severity within a given region
  2. building codes are supposed to reflect these possibilities, as well as historical data.

But the real point is, you can't predict when an earthquake will occur, but you can build to withstand them. So virtually all earthquake deaths, except from landslides, are the result of poor building codes or corruption. JeffBurdges (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your viewpoint. Although your viewponit is true (probably not all?), I think it might be reasonable to consider the number of coincidences that have happened on that day. The date of the earthquake happened adds up to 8. The total number of days before the Beijing Olympics on that very day adds up to an 88. And so forth. Also, it might be reasonable to consider that the earthquake occured at 2.28PM. Which, if you take the numbers itself, translates into 228, which is the day where many Taiwanese people have been killed after the Kuomingtang came from China and "ruled" Taiwan, regulating speech and thought. = ) Prowikipedians (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but as you say, these are just coincidences. Given the amount of possible numbers associated with the event (all possible combinations of dates, times, magnitudes, aftershocks etc) and all the possible numbers with inferred 'significance' (numbers with religious/folklore significance, number of days before/after events, dates of previous events etc.) then it's pretty likely that a few of them will coincide by chance. Eve Hall (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese structural code is regarded to be the leading seismic design code worldwide. However, 'Former Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics chairman Ziggy Lubkowski said that while current seismic codes are good, it appeared that many of the buildings destroyed – particularly in Chengdu – were "either pre-code or early code structures".' http://www.nce.co.uk/international/news/2008/05/china_quake_leaves_nearly_12000_dead.html. Also, the area was not predicted to have anything like this magnitude of quake (like Kobe). The Zipingpu dam was designed for accelerations of 0.25 g at the crest but experienced some eight times this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The design level was roughly one fifth the quake that hit http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13885-accepted-level-of-earthquake-risk-in-china-too-high.html

I overhauled the prediction section.

  1. Recycled a blog debacle surrounding Wenchuan earthquake that did not belong to Earthquake prediction.
  2. Removed last few sentences about the state of art of predition that really belonged to Earthquake prediction and not here.
  3. Revised the opening statement as the citations did not support the original statement.

Sillyvalley (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

terrain precluded helicopter

  • "The extreme terrain conditions precluded the use of helicopter evacuation"

I wish the article tell me more about this problem in English. I know this is about how high the plane can fly, but I don't quite understand it, and I wish to see more examples from other events. Thanks. 118.169.96.250 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Ga Push

This article is definitely good enough. But I don't think it would fit the neutral category. ~

ldshal42
01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no neutral for Chinese-related articles. In order for this article to pass, it needs to be shortened, and it needs to get lucky and find itself an appropriate assessor. --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear explosion theory

I've removed the following:

Boxun.com
, an anti-communist blog created by dissidents in exile, cited a nuclear expert as saying that a nuclear explosion either followed or preceded the earthquake.

Boxun.com and The Epoch Times (which also discusses the Boxun story) are not reliable sources on the science of nuclear weapons, and the idea that a nuclear weapon could have caused the earthquake sounds very much like scientific nonsense to me.--Pharos (talk
) 23:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Collapse of schools

That section is even larger than the main article. Using the information in this section, I think somebody expert on the subject should expand the main article. --haha169 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is

transcluded from Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

  • Some of the references are missing publishers; please ensure that they include at least a title, URL, publisher, and accessdate, per WP:CITE/ES.
    • You have to be aware that not all references can include a publisher, because they are published by sites like zhing.com.cn or something, and have no name. But I will make sure that they have a title and accessdate. URLs are non necessary either when citing a book or other non-web sources, but I am certain that the existing web sources all have URLs. --haha169 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Finished What I Found - If there are more, please tell me and I will fix immediately. But that's all I found. --haha169 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Beijing (1,500 km away) and Shanghai (1,700 km away)" – convert to miles as well; it is suggested that {{convert}} be used to facilitate this.
  • If dates are to be linked in this article, then link all dates for consistency. "May 25", for example, must be linked.

talk
) 01:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will get to them as soon as I can, which might be tomorrow. I could probably complete wiki-linking the dates today, though. Update Finished. --haha169 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA criteria and has therefore been passed.

talk
) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing = Presumed Dead?

It's been almost two months since the earthquake. At what point can the missing be presumed dead? The USGS is already doing this (ie, including the missing in their dead total). Can anyone find a Chinese source that is doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a Chinese source. USGS is a good enough source - but I won't be able to do that. I have a FAC under my hands, a stressful one. --haha169 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. I was not suggesting that we *need* a Chinese source. It is a question of standards -- at what point are missing presumed to be dead? Either we find some consensus of this in the external world, or we decided it here. In any case, I wouldn't go by one source in this matter, even if that source is the USGS. It would simply be helpful if someone found an official Chinese source regarding this. The official death toll page still seems (I don't read Chinese) to be listing the missing as merely "missing", which is rather odd. I assume that there must be an official standard out there, although that may vary from country to country. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It will always vary. China will want to make the death toll smaller to make their image better (or larger to accept sympathy), and other nations/organizations will have their various reasons to be biased. Best wait on this one. --haha169 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC soon?

I would really like to get the article featured by next year so we could put it on the main page by May 12 2009. It is very well-referenced, but I would like to fix some issues so it is very, very, good! --

(talk)
21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and I have thought about that. Very few earthquake articles have become Featured, in fact, only 1 has (point), and one year as Featured (point) plus anniversary (point) will gather record points. I'll begin working on it soon. --haha169 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

English style needs unification

An obvious example is that while most cited dates use dd M yyyy, "epicenter" and "center" are spelled in U.S. style, mixed with use of "kilometre". I am under the impression that China's official English publication tends to use British style, but not sure. Sillyvalley (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You guessed right, which tends to lead to issues in that direction. It will have to be manually changed, then. --haha169 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" topic?

Very confused about one of the top notes. What could possibly make this topic controversial? Sillyvalley (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I actually added that about a month ago. There were multiple issues at the time, such as the rumours about HAARP, the sightings of earthquake clouds, lights, the signs and predictions, and the collapse of schools and other buildings, etc. If you don't feel that this is enough to make the topic "controversial", then feel free to remove the tag. Thanks. ~
U
) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That may be it, but I see the biggest controversy is the country in which the event happened. I can safely guarantee that 70% of China-related articles are listed "controversial", despite the fact that the article has nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately, China-articles have a way of pushing politics in, no matter how odd of far-off the article's topic is. --haha169 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Serves as a "welcome to the wikiworld" to me:-) As it stands today, allegation of corruption regarding school building collapse is well presented, especially with a main article. Quake prediction is ever so controversial, especially in China. If only verifiable sources of short-term prediction or the support thereof can be located. Sillyvalley (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Just viewed a YouTube video regarding HAARP and Wenchuan. My opinion is that the "possibility" of HAARP triggering earthquake is probably as real as high dams triggering earthquakes. (There has been no evidence that high dams could trigger major quakes.) Earthquake clouds and lights are too common to be definitively associated to HAARP - Einstein would prune this with his principle of simplicity. I do not see HAARP mentioned today?
On the other hand, if there is a way to include reliable sightings of pre-quake signs, that would enrich the article. Sillyvalley (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The only reliable sightings of pre-quake signs were censored by the corrupt Wenchuan and Sichuan provincial governments. The only proof was just removed from Google Cache a while ago.--haha169 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting official Chinese comment on "Earthquake cloud", effectively confirming sighting in places far from the epicenter: ""Earthquake cloud" may be related to earthquakes, but is far from determining an earthquake (地震云可能和地震有关 但对作出地震判断相差甚远)" (in Chinese). The Central Government of the People's Republic of China. 2008-05-14. Retrieved 2008-09-29. Sillyvalley (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A retard's take on it

There's no such thing as an "American English" article, to say so would mean... there's a need to split Wikipedia into British English and American English. Also how do you decide this would be "American English" when infact Hong Kong (now back inside Chinese control) for example would follow British English spelling along with their native Cantonese language???? CaribDigita (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The convention, as expressed at
WP:ENGVAR, is to usually keep the conventions of English spelling (either British or American) that were originally used by previous authors. Hence if American English is used originally, then it should generally be maintained. This limits pointless battles focused on changing one spelling into another. Dragons flight (talk
) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New casualty figure available as of 7/21

"逝者安息 生者奋发 - 关注5.12汶川大地震 (May the dead rest in peace. May the living thrive in strides - Focus on 5.12 Wenchuan Great Earthquake) (Special Publications about the Sichuan Earthquake)" (in Chinese). 腾讯大成网 (Tencent QQ). Retrieved 2008-07-24. There must be other references. The casualty section is a bit difficult for me - and really late for me Sillyvalley (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sillyvalley, you've been updating way to constantly. Take a rest, and wait every few weeks for every update, not every time the Chinese government adds 5 names to the list. --haha169 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources

I removed the note about use of non-English sources because in view of the article's use of such, it is not a concern.

  1. The subject of the article is an event in a country where English is not an official language. Most direct sources are going to be exclusively Chinese.
  2. There are plenty of bilingual editors reviewing this page, including several active ones.
  3. The article makes a conscious effort to identify the context of potentially controversial information if it is only available from a single source, and when different sources provides differring information.

In short, this article's use of non-English sources largely conforms to the policy in Verifiability#Non-English sources. Sillyvalley (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

simplified & trad chinese characters are identical

Someone with Chinese language skills please review the line "It was also known as the Wenchuan earthquake (simplified Chinese: 汶川大地震; traditional Chinese: 汶川大地震; pinyin: Wènchuān dà dìzhèn)," (currently 3rd from top). It appears the chars labeled as simplified are actually traditional. 72.227.121.137 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)tickerhead (not signed in)

Not every Chinese character has been simplified. Some are kept unchanged in simplified Chinese. It is just coincident that all the five characters are such kind. For your interest, in a Chinese idiom "工欲善其事，必先利其器" all ten characters are not simplified in simplified Chinese. --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of missing

Approximately one year after theh earthquake, the information on persons missing remains 17,923 on the Wikipedia entry (statistics as of September 22, 2008). At some point, will that number be added to those who died, or relabeled as "presumed dead"? --71.111.205.22 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In China there is not official policy of presuming dead after missing for long period of time. A person will only regard as dead when a body has been found and identify. (for example, there is still a large missing in action figure for the Korean War) Xingfenzen (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Xingfenzen

Superstition

I recall that in the aftermath of this there was a lot of superstition about this and other natural disasters, especially having to do with the dates on which they happened (ie, 3/14 adds up to 8), the animals associated with the Fuwa and supposedly with the earthquake/etc., and a bunch of other mumbo jumbo. I couldn't find any mention of it in the article, though...would it be nice to add some (or, if it's already there, make it easier to find?). I know it was covered in some reliable sources, I just don't have them on hand right now; I might be able to find some later if there's an interest in adding this to the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Sichuan earthquake also proved to be a rather sensitive issue in terms of nationalistic fervor in China."

This statement is posted with no supporting information or examples. I have no idea what the statement means... Jabberwockgee (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=333430. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

Mkativerata (talk
) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Earthquake's results section contradicts the factfile.
Factfile - Earthquake's Magnitude = 8.0 Ms / 7.9 Mw
Earthquake's results - Earthquake's Magnitude = 7.9 Ms / 7.9 Mw
188.221.24.27 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the 'results' section magnitude to 8.0 consistent with the infobox and lede and the (working) refs. The contradict tag was, however, a bit over the top, a simple note here would have been fine. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Copiapó mining accident article improvements

Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.

I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.

I think one section, or series of sections our is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.

I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.

Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Length of tremor

The 25 minutes tremor is a bit dubious in that, within the same section, it states the tremor lasted 2-3 minutes. I was wondering if it was a mis-typed 2.5 minutes?.

Confirmation from an additional source would help.

J.P.Lon (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an old piece of vandalism added by an IP. I've changed it back to '2 minutes', the version before the IP's edit. Mikenorton (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kunlun

Hi. Should we link the much lesser-known but similar magnitude 2001 Kunlun earthquake that struck a connecting fault west of the Longmenshan Fault that produced the 2008 quake, but the earlier one caused no fatalities? Article should probably include a mention and reliable sources. For example, try Google Scholar and bring up any articles that explicitly make a connection. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 16:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk
) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk
) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk
) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can Someone Please Verify the Earthquake Duration of 2 Days and 8 Hours

The edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Sichuan_earthquake&oldid=457076884 was done by a Wikipedian that only came here and made 1 edit and probably created a page on himself that was speedyed. I am wondering if someone can verify the duration of the earthquake lasting 2 Days and 8 Hours? I can't find anything on this right now as I thought it only lasted a few minutes. Please Help! Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 19:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have listed this issue in the talk pages of all 4 projects that focus on this page maybe someoen can help find a source there. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that "duration of" an earthquake is measured in span of major aftershocks, although I'm not an expert in this language. All I can say is that I do not recall a source making such statement, or is there any particular reason to attribute such a duration. (If span of major aftershocks is of any use, it wouldn't be 2 days 8 hours, anyhow, no matter how one defines "major".)Sillyvalley (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Theres's no such thing as a "span of major aftershocks". The duration of an earthquake generally refers to the duration of
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was one of the longest if I recall). Mikenorton (talk
) 19:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Sichuan_earthquake/Archive_2&oldid=1190119465"