Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 2008 Sichuan earthquake → 2008 Wenchuan earthquake — 1976 Tangshan Earthquake is not called "Hebei Earthquake", so why this is Sichuan Earthquake, not Wenchuan Earthquake? —Python eggs (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, this is a naming conversion, and most mainstream Chinese language media call it "Wenchuan earthquake". Python eggs (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Chinese media such as the Xinhua News Agency have referred to the earthquake as "Wenchuan earthquake" in many articles. Obvious change Bloodstriker (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, we called the Tangshan earthquake because it mainly damaged the city of Tangshan. But this one has wilder effects, and it is damaging the whole provence of Sichuan.Sqctrd (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, USGS is calling it the Sichuan earthquake 68.73.94.131 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

USGS is referring to the general the region in which the earthquake happened, just like "Central Alaska". It is not naming the earthquake as "the Sichuan earthquake". If yes, please cite source.Bloodstriker (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they "named" it, I said that they are calling it (referring to it) as the "Sichuan earthquake" and also now the Eastern Sichuan earthquake. Link is available on the mainpage. We're looking for the commonly used term in English language sources, and that is one example. So far I only see references to Chinese sources for the term "Wenchuan earthquake".

• Support --87.13.5.75 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep name per USGS to avoid confusion. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, The London Times calls it the "Sichuan quake"--79.173.213.202 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Most people doing a search for information will be looking for Sichuan Earthquake, not Wenchuan Earthquake. InfernoXV (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support 165.84.1.71 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the English language press is calling it the Sichuan earthquake, and I feel burdened to point out that this is not Chinese Wikipedia and that what it is called in Chinese is beyond irrelevant. Yunfeng (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, Australian media is calling is Sichuan. Katana Geldar 00:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, currently widely known as Sichuan by BBC, Australian Media, CNN, and even Xinhua News. --haha169 (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Sichuan earthquake, or earthquake in Sichuan, is not a name at all, only an expedient combination of descriptive words. Why not follow the naming tradition? You are only creating longterm confusion. BTW it's definately not called sichuan earthquake by Xinhua now.Helloterran (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Example 1 Example 2 Shanghai also And yet another one You seeing a trend here? - This vote should be cancelled now KringleK (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Sichuan earthquake is definitely not a naming convention for earthquakes. Please simply refer Tangshan earthquake or others. GunRock (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Sichuan earthquake is a disambig page now.Weltanschauung☯Ĥòĭnäþbåķtšýñ 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, despite the talk and attempted Support vote stacking of Chinese expats/residents, the rest of the world media has named it the "Sichuan earthquake" and that is what it will forever be known as in non-Chinese residents minds - Google News KringleK (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I find the attempt by Chinese language speakers to dictate to English language speakers the proper way to name events in English as wonderfully ironic cultural imperialism.

• Oppose, keep name as USGS's to avoid further confusion.--80.203.70.235 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: See also here. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, Unless the English media starts calling it otherwise, but the English media, as far as I have seen, is naming it the Sichuan Earthquake. What China names it is irrelevent to the English Wikipedia. --Kenbei (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Calling it the Wenchuan earthquake will result in less confusion internationally as that is what its called in its native countryRominik (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an argument for the intl community, not English Wikipedia, to call it Wenchuan EQ. So far the intl English speaking community has been calling it either Sichaun EQ or Eastern Sichuan EQ, but if that changes, Wikipedia will change to accommodate.

Comment because I already opposed. I was watching Chinese News yesterday on TV, Bay Area KRON or something like that. They referred it to "Sichuan Da Di Zhen". Sichuan Earthquake. --haha169 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wait and see - if and when BBC, CNN or a few such start, we can do it in 2 seconds. The redirect is in place, so that covers our bases.

That makes 8 supports, 10 opposes, and me. Does anyone strongly object to calling it a draw, and leaving it the way it is for now? --  Chzz  ►  23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is now. We'll change it if AMERICAN or BRITISH news media changes the name. --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AMERCIAN or BRITISH media will unlikely to call it Wenchuan earthquake, because they are news media, they write news report. Most of their target reader lack of knowledge of Chinese geography, so news reporter will try to use larger-scale place name instead of a small county. But here is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Wikipedia is not a news media, the article is written for long-term and should be more accurate. Python eggs (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"2008 Sichuan EQ" is accurate. There is nothing "more accurate" about "2008 Wenchuan EQ"; I believe the words you're looking for are "more specific". In any case, the article is perfectly accurate and specific about the EQ location. However, "specificity" is not the primary criterion for selecting article titles -- "common usage" is. And in the English world, "common usage" is dictated by, well, common use, as is reflected primarily in the mass media. The reasons for privileging "common use" over "specificity" or even "accuracy" in article titles is for reasons of accessibility -- we want as many English speakers as possible to be able to find what they are looking for, and that is mostly easily accomplished by using the most commonly used names for article titles. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of Toronto Star, a popular newspaper in Canada, calling it Wenchuan Earthquake 1 and another example from Time 2. Mimson (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wait for a larger consensus before acting. Googling "Wenchuan earthquake" currently yields 1,020 results and 86 news results. "Sichuan earthquake" yields 11,400 and 579. The proposed name seems like it would be more logical, though it is undoubtedly less prevalent in the English speaking world. I would like to suggest that someone personally contact the USGS to request an official statement regarding their position on the name, and provide them with this insight if possible.   — C M B J   04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Python Eggs, this is an ENGLISH encyclopedia, and as people are quite influenced by the media, we use terms most people know about. CMBJ's Google research proves it. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The google search compared "Sichuan Earthquake" to "Wenchuan Earthquake", using the unproven assumption that most of hits for "Sichuan Earthquake" refers to the Wenchuan Earthquake when they could refer to any of a number of other earthquakes that have taken place in Sichuan. Currently, a google search of "Wenchuan earthquake yields 8340 results and "Sichuan earthquake" wenchuan yields 8910 results. The google news yields 169 and 476 hits, respectively. Mimson (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the name used by the English-language media. If they start calling it something different, we can revisit this discussion at a later date. Mangostar (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, Even in Chinese language news, it is known as Sichuan earthquake,not Wenchuan earthquake. I used baidu.com, which is the primary Chinese search engine and got the following results: 四川地震(Sichuan earthquake) returned 4,050,000 pages; 汶川地震(Wenchuan earthquake)returned 243,000 pages;四川大地震(Sichuan great earthquake)returned 495,000 pages; 汶川大地震(Wenchuan great earthquake) returned 119,000 pages. Clearly,"Sichuan earthquake" is the winner here. --69.231.141.242 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  You must add double quotation marks around 四川地震, or 四川汶川地震 may be included. Python eggs (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I regularly watch CCTV and China says this is the Wenchuan earthquake... All of the televised coverage from CCTV has been saying "Wenchuan earthquake" at the bottom of the screen even. Actually when I came on here I was wondering why Wikipedia (looked to me) like it had the wrong name. As it reads now it would be like in America saying "The California earthquake" and you'd be like well which part? Esp. since the Province of Sichuan is larger than the U.S. state of California in size. CaribDigita (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless it is "officially named" one way or the other you'll hear both depending on the speaker, since both could be considered correct, so the most famously known "name" should be used in Wikipedia. A simple Google search clearly shows which is more commonly used. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 02:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:MoS, we use the dialect of English used in the place which is affected by the subject of the article, and since this is about an earthquake in China, then we should use Chinese English, so since China calls this the Wenchuan earthquake, we should call it that as well. Since this will likely result in a no consensus anyway, create redirects from the many possible search terms if nessecary. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we already have enough "Chinese English" in this article, TYVM. In any case, you're misreading the MoS: 1) It's referring to native English speaking countries, and 2) it's referring to dialect, and place names, especially those newly minted, are not an issue of dialect.

• Wait We should wait and see what the earthquake is called the most by worldwide media and then have the article be named what the meida are calling it the most. Looneyman (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

1976 Tangshan Earthquake is not called "Hebei Earthquake", so why this is Sichuan Earthquake, not Wenchuan Earthquake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Limbo What matters is what the independent sources call this quake. CNN, MSN, and the major publishing companies have not called it anything yet, but did mention Sichuan.EgraS (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC, world's largest news agency, are calling it "earthquake in Sichuan province" on the 24 hour rolling news service. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It should only be moved if news agencies start calling it the "Wenchuan earthquake"--Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Their lack of knowledge on chinese geography is not an excuse for this mistake. In China it's called Wenchuan earthquake.Helloterran (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What it's called in China is irrelevant: this isn't the chinese language wikipedia. One example off the top of my head - in Vietnam the Vietnam war is known as the American war, but almost no-one in the English-speaking world calls it that. Admittedly this isn't quite the same, but it's a good analogy. The article should only be moved if most news agencies in the US/UK/other mainly English-speaking countries start mentioning Wenchuan in preference to Sichuan. Time3000 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "Wenchuan earthquake" gets 10 hits on Google. The name is simply not in use in English. Yunfeng (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Use the English name. That's wiki policy and will be less confusing for Wiki's target audience, English speakers. It wouldn't hurt to have searches for "Wenchuan earthquake" to forward here in case someone goes looking for that name. Readin (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Indian Ocean Tsunami is not called such on Wikipedia, so I see no reason to call this the Szechwan Earthquake if a more specific name is available. Just like the 1980's SanFran quake is called Loma Prieta. 74.15.105.204 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've actually heard BOTH names used in the media, earthquake in Wenchuan in Sinchuan province (or something of the like). Katana Geldar 11:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)
• Comment I agree with Readin, keep it Sichuan Earthquake but redirect Wenchuan Earthquake to the article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed split (Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake)

The original discussion was confusing (see Chzz and haha169's comments) and had gone somewhat off-topic into a political debate. Simply vote or voice your opinions here regarding the proposed split of 2008 Sichuan earthquake#Reaction outside mainland China -> Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per International response to Hurricane Katrina and Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.   — C M B J   08:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per 9/11 attacks having an article on Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Syed 09:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with the same reasons as the two above.--Kenbei (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Many of those reactions should be deleted – what's encyclopeadical on it? Most of it is only hot air in a box, tomorrow. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. What's encyclopedical about the Pope praying for the victims?

--dunnhaupt (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am about to move both "International Reaction" AND "Foreign and domestic aid" into a 'see also' sub-article called "Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake" as I see no objections to these ideas on here, and [[WP:BOLD]. Personally, I'm not convinced a lot of that information is worth an entry, but perhaps it could develop into a decent article rather than just a list.

I'll wait 30 mins for any screams of Noooo! on here, and then do it.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Group all casualty-related comments in this section. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese dead in Sichuan

Two tourists from Taiwan were killed by the earthquake in Sichuan, I think list them in the table is confusing, cause they were not in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just confusing, but incorrect. The table is a table of deaths by region of death, not region of residence. If any of those British tourists had died, we would not list them as having died in Britain. I deleted the table entry and added something in the text of the Casualties section, but it needs a citation. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubt the importance of this section, 2 deaths seems do not have to be mentioned compare to the 30000+ death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.65.92 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

number of dead

We have been using the 'number of dead' from the Chinese website here which, AFAIK, is valid. As I understand it, "遇难人数（人）' states the number dead.

A user recently reverted the number given in the header; I undid this, as the change would necessitate a change throughout the article, and in other places such as WP:ITN - which I requested some 30-odd hours ago was amended to 'over 16,000'.

If this source is invalid, please explain below and we'll have to make those edits.

If you can elaborate on this issue, please contribute.

--  Chzz  ►  21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to update the figures on site, due to earlier disagreements over which figure to rely on, but for peoples own info, the figures on the STNN now shows 19,562 dead. --  Chzz  ►  01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

From the 66,000 injured added to the 15,000 dead (this is rounded), wouldn't the casualties be around 81,000? Just searching casualty on wikipedia gives "a person killed or injured in a war or disaster". Should somebody just change the heading from 'casualties' to 'deaths' or add the injuries in (for a true casualty total)? 72.200.21.121 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Does the cite say specifically, 81,000 casualties? We can't conduct original research according to Wiki policy. That means, no a+b=c. --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, sorry. If a cite says, "150 people in Footown like cheese, and 20 like milk", and we say "170 people in Footown like dairy products"? Original research? No. We summarise. Jeez...--  Chzz  ►  04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, coz there might be some who both like cheese and milk. Original research. --79.67.153.23 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's if it is in one cite. I was under the impression that he was referring to two separate cites.

A=Cite 1

B=Cite 2

C=Original Research--haha169 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we add this? "BBC: The Chinese government fears more than 50,000 people may have been killed in the Sichuan quake, state media says."

--  Chzz  ►  11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

sadly, yes 68.73.94.131 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

I suggest to move this article back into the main one. It is being suggested at Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion, and the case against us is strong. Therefore, I vote for a partial move which includes:

• Olympic Committee
• United Nations
• European Union
• Germany
• Japan
• New Zealand
• Philippines
• Russia
• Singapore
• United States

Those above because they have more cited context than simply "extend condolences"

• Canada
• France
• India
• North Korea

Those above due to their special relationship with China. North Korea especially, Canada less so.

• Hong Kong
• Macau
• Taiwan
• Tibet Government in Exile

Those above due to their "special" status in/with China. Hong Kong less so. Tibet and Taiwan more so.--haha169 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic makes sense. I agree that expressing condolences isn't sufficient reason to be listed. Macau should be included to. They have citation of pledging aid, and like Hong Kong and Tibet they are part of China.Readin (talk)

There's a Macau? I didn't notice that...All right. Added.--haha169 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. These will be integrated to the existing flags if nobody opposes within the next couple hours. --haha169 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it's a bad idea because it'll cause endless argument about what should/should not appear, and it'll just be a meaningless list of countries. It doesn't add value to the article, and who are you or I to decide which should be included? Specifically, why Korea, and not Japan? Why not Thailand - their neighbour? Why 'Olympic committee' - since when has that been a nation? etc. etc.

With this being such a potentially difficult issue, I think it's unfair to make the change in 'a couple of hours' - at least give people a chance to comment! (And it's 03:00 in the UK, so not many people are around!)

I would suggest, instead, arguing the case to keep the page on the basis it can be improved in the coming days/weeks. --  Chzz  ►  01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't understand your comment about the AFD, "the case against us is strong" - who is 'us'? Who is the opposition? AFD is for us all to vote on. We're not trying to overthrow a system here! Or, if we are, then wiki is all broken. --  Chzz  ►  02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Chzz, is the fact that the entire article simply isn't notable enough. We have 4 days to either improve the article to include a large summary and history of international reaction, (which I see is completely impossible), or just merge back. There is already a list of flags in that section, we can simply expand on them. You understand me? I’m not interested in adding another list to the article – just expanding on the current one. --haha169 (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand about 'merging' with the flags, but I still think it's a bad idea for the reasons given. In fact, all along, I've suggested that the 'international donations' should also be in that separate article. In any event, as you say, we have 4 days. At least give others a chance to contribute their opinion. And [[WP:GD] says "exercise extreme caution before merging...It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete". --  Chzz  ►  03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember that the split was conducted within only a few hours; I had no chance to oppose at all. However, I appreciate your concern, and will give you four days. Halfway through May 19th , it will be near the deadline, so the merger will have to occur unless you are able to establish more than a two sentence lead based off the original article and a bunch of countries. --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel you that the split was too sudden. I honestly believed that the discussions (which had been going on for 12 hours) indicated no strong opposition to the 'compromise' of moving the info to a new article. My personal view was to delete it, but I thought this compromise would sit reasonably well with everyone.

Regarding possible merger - lets respect the process of AFD - discussion and agreement over there. A merger does not have to occur. And it's not 'up to me' to improve the article. I don't own it.

We have three choices; delete it, merge it back in, keep it separate. I want it deleted; lets see if that is the consensus in the AFD. If not, my second choice would be to keep it separate. I don't see that 'it's of poor quality' is a good reason to merge it back in - quite the opposite.

I hope this is clear. Once again, sincere apologies if anyone though I was presumptive in creating the new article in the first place; my intentions were simply to improve the main article. --  Chzz  ►  16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I did my best to the reactions article. Added a lead, added reflist template, but I honestly can't find anything to make it more notable than a flag list. If you can't either, then the merger simply will have to occur. I haven't just sat back and did nothing; I honestly tried, but it is a hopeless case. Maybe you can get ideas from the 9/11 reactions article..--haha169 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Property

Group property-related (losses, damage, clean-up, rebuilding, insurance, etc.) subsections here. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Issue of "Old Buildings"

It seems that nothing has been mentioned here of the fact that most of the thousands of buildings that came down were **not** old as claimed by some people and elements in the media. Many of the buildings were less than 15 years old, with most of these being less than 10 years old; many were virtually new. The reason why most of the buildings collapsed was because of extremely lax enforcement of construction regulation (i.e. corruption and greed), yet there are plenty of regulations in this country. There is already an article in the New York Times that clearly mentions this. This is an issue that needs to be deeply explored in this Wikipedia article, but I suggest that nothing is posted regarding it until plenty of sources and references are available/found. In sum, sectors of the government are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths. I've lived in Sichuan for most of the last decade and I've told locals that a tragedy such as this could easily happen. No one listened, and many acted as though I was an ignorant foreigner. It was all plain to see, and frankly, inevitable. (BTW, my IP says that I'm in France, but that's because I have to use VPN.)

• On CCTV during the chinese morning debate show Dialogue they brought the issue of older buildings in Wenchen. China has continued showing coverage of the disaster on CCTV. If you have DirecTV the English channel for CCTV is channel 455. CaribDigita (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article still 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.99.210 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Property losses, Insurance

I added the CNN latest update so I revised the official death toll to 19,000 and injured to 26,000. And since there is no property and insurance figures, I added this so that businessmen will find this thing very useful in insurance here and in China.:Official figures (as of May 14, 2008) state that 19,565 (including 7,700 in Yingxiu, near the epicenter), are confirmed dead, and 26,206 injured. Thousands are missing, many of them buried, and 8 provinces were affected.edition.cnn.com, China earthquake toll updateap.google.com, China airlifts aid to remote villages hit by quakeupi.com, China's quake horror revealed Catastrophe modeling firm AIR Worldwide reported official estimate of Insurers' loss at $ 1 billion from the earthquake, because estimated total damages exceed $ 20 billion. It valued Chengdu, Sichuan Province’s capital city of 4.5 million people, exceeds $ 115 billion, with a small portion covered by insurance.businessinsurance.com, Earthquake estimates high as $1 billion: AIR 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed in Beichuan county, Sichuan province alone, 10,000 injured and 80% of the buildings were destroyed. 8 schools were toppled in Dujiangyan.uk.reuters.com, China says up to 5,000 dead in one quake-hit county --Florentino floro (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

International (aid, comments, donations, reactions, rescue efforts, responses, etc.)

If your question/comment relates to international reactions, responses, comments, donations, aid, etc., please keep it with this group. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reaction outside mainland China

Do we really need this section? I don't think it adds anything to the article. Every spokesperson said more or less the same thing. Yunfeng (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

: Go for it, get rid. Also, can we delete the para "According to the British Geological Survey..." - I see nothing in there not covered elsewhere? --  Chzz  ►  21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kill it. WP:BOLD. Yunfeng (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Better to rewrite that entire section incorporating USGS and BGS info. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the section per Hurricane Katrina#International response (featured article) unless a consensus concludes otherwise. It may be best for the article to provide a brief summary of the most important events and split the bulk into a separate article as was done with Hurricane Katrina.   — C M B J   22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I think we should hold on here. How many articles have international reactions? Usually those of such magnitude that they warrant a precis of international responses. I think this earthquake has caused quite enough destruction to warrant a summary of how the world reacted to it. I suggest the international summary section is reinstated doktorb _words^deeds 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose What will that article have? A couple flags and a few sentences? It belongs in this article better. Even the torch relay's international reaction is connected to the article, and theirs is longer than this entire article. --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose As of now, it adds nothing to the article. If you can write a nice account of the relief efforts, in a more readable form, that'll be great. But I can't see that happening right now, so until someone has created a neat section, I really think it should go, now. It looks 'straggly' at the end, like an after-thought - and many of us are working hard to get this article up to scratch whilst it's so topical.  Chzz  ►  00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (struck my earlier comment so only counted once)

Reply to Chzz' Thanks for your reply. I take your point that this section should be expanded, and think if we could include international responses/aid in addition to reactions, it would provide a useful section. This can be easily achieved with just as much a Google search as it took me to find the David Miliband quote. I am setting off for work soon but think an expanded reaction-and-response section would be benefical. doktorb _words^deeds 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chzz, I see we have opposing opinions, yet both of us are strongly opposing this. What is this supposed to mean? I'm opposing the deletion of this section - what about you? --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing all the symbolic expressions of sympathy adds nothing to the article. Just because other articles have reaction sections doesn't mean this article has to have one. "International reaction" should become "International response" and limited to actual material/humanitarian/financial aid from outside China. The fact that Taiwan offered rescue teams and humanitarian aid is notable. I suspect in the longer term there will be a large international victim identification effort, similar to the one after the tsunami. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"International response" is the usual/proper title, but complications and discrepancies can arise when including responses from the autonomous areas of Hong Kong and Macau, as well as responses concerning the territories disputed between the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China.   — C M B J   02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, and I know that. However, notice the little template at the top of the article. Wait until its gone, then we go through major revamping to make it fit standards. --haha169 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The standards were designed for other countries, not for the PRC with its issues. The standards don't work. Readin (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not the section is kept, but if it is kept, please don't add the "countries" section back in because that forces the question of where to put Taiwan, and we don't want to have that discussion here. Readin (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit too late for that now. We've got an IP and a newly registered user insisting that Taiwan is a "SAR". But I know the old format won't come back. --haha169 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This section should be divided into some subsections for easy understanding. One for International organizations, one for countries and one for relevant territories. For a similar context, look at the structure followed in the article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum above. This is no place for you to push a particular political agenda regarding ROC/Taiwan. Every accommodation has been made to keep from calling Taiwan a "country" and yet you seemingly will not be satisfied until it is classified in a category all by itself. Your continuing campaign is disruptive. You need to stop now, and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov for more info. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TROLL. I don't want to continue discussion with this IP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He's not trolling. However, that IP is a little too aggressive. For now, we leave it the way it is (see above discussion under same title). We will revamp once that little template at the top goes away. --haha169 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this article and discussion about the earthquakes and its effects, not about the status of Taiwan. The best way to do that is to avoid forcing the issue of whether or not to include Taiwan in a list of countries. Readin (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If I seem aggressive it is merely because Otolemur has been trying to harass and intimidate me just because I reverted several of his numerous contrary-to-consensus changes targeting Taiwan and suggested that he make his case on this discussion page. And now he's calling me names. To address directly his Kosovo example, on that page Taiwan is explicitly labeled a "state", ie, a "country"(!); it is merely separated from UN member states because that is particularly relevant wrt recognizing the statehood of Kosovo. So, his own example contradicts his argument. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks Yuanyelele (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the proposed split name to Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake per Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.   — C M B J   08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Donations

Should we put up a link to donation methods? Here's the one reported by the Chinese Red Cross: http://www.chinacsr.com/2008/05/13/2339-china-red-cross-calling-for-donations-for-sichuan-earthquake-with-sinacom/

God bless all the Chinese people in such a time --Wd1040 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Section "International reactions"

This sections is aboslutely unnecessary. It is an act of courtesy to express condolences and to offer assistance and therefore there's no need to list each diplomatic not sent to the Chinese here. That sections does not need to be splitted but it needs to be deleted. In ten years nobody is interested wether the Pope prayed for the victims or if Dubya sent his condolences. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree This was discussed before, but consensus wasn't reached. Lets see if we can agree it now. --  Chzz  ►  19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moderate Disagree Sure, few people will care about such specifics, but you're setting up an argument you cannot prove. If we had a separate article on international reacion and respones, we could be getting somewhere. Or, we merge all the section on "ir+r" into one big commentary on who said and pledged what, giving an overview on the international reaction without turning it into a Wikinerd feast of flags and quotes? Maybe it's being British that does it, but I think that's a fairly good diplomatic comprimise....doktorb _words^deeds 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree international reaction of sending condolences etc can be split off but not the aid section which is integral to the actual recovery and reconstruction of that area. Karloffman (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the splitting is a good idea. Currently, the article isn't terrible long, and it is better to tidy up and tighten the section. The real problem the section has is that we don't have to mention every bit of international reaction. The information should be summarized; that's what an encyclopedia is for. -- Taku (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification: I didn't talk about "response" in form of international aid. I talked about empty words. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

International Reaction (again)

So Cowboy and I have been having this argument. Nobody wants to get penalized by WP: 3RR, so I'm taking it here. That section had only a simple "Main" template. I added some reasons why the quake got international attention, but the part about Taiwan and Tibet were deleted.

I was asked to establish notability. I did: Those two regions have never helped China significantly before. I said that, and was asked to take it to the talk page. Now, before anybody opposes my reason, PLEASE PROVIDE A GOOD counterexample to my statement. I don't want another "its not notable" or political debates. --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that, the Reactions section in this article should only be a summary of the separate article (Plus the link). Current version already provides this. If you think your addition is necessary, you should first work on the summary of that article, in which no reaction from Taiwan or Tibet Government in Exile are singled out as of now. Does this make sense to you? And we can discuss notability there. Thanks. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was, until you so rudely removed the entry. There was to be “domestic,” plus some foreign aid (such as EU and UN). The biggest and most notable organizations. Possibly even the Olympics statement by Jacques R. Those are all notable ones. Notice I didn’t put in “Singapore decided to donate $1,000”. --haha169 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"I was" what so I "rudely removed the entry"? I only remembered the last two reverts regarding your edit in this article only, each time with a reason in the log entry. I hope this discussion does not introduce additional misunderstanding. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

This whole thing is a mess. You're arguing what level of aid info to include under the reaction section/entry, but we already have a separate aid section. Before we can come to consensus on what is notable or not, we need to decide whether to combine these sections or keep them separate. My vote is to combine them both into a separate entry. Also, I agree that aid from Tibet and Taiwan is notable, but you don't have to reiterate the details; keep them in the separate entry. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Cowboy. That was, however, a bit rude of me. But that second revert of yours wasn’t necessary; you have to bring up the topic in the talk page because those sentences were there first. You have to contest for removal. However, my edit summary was a little rude. ‘’’Response to the IP’’’ Would you rather have an empty section with only one link? That never happens in a good article, and if we ever hope to pass GAC and GAN, that section needs to be filled. But nonetheless, I believe that section needs to be filled regardless of GAC. MoS is more like it.--haha169 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not propose an empty section. I proposed not including all the level of detail your edit contained. A summary is sufficient. That being said, you ignored the most salient point, which is that aid info (which was part of your edit) doesn't belong in a "reactions" section/entry when there is already a separate "aid" section. I reiterate: IMO the sections should be combined. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then you can go and combine or do whatever you suggest. I don't completely understand what you are saying, and I need to sleep anyways. I hope that section looks good tomorrow. Have you considered getting an account?--haha169 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am supportive of merging the two sections (bascilly adding that one liner summary into the aid section) . But the link to the separate article about international reaction should be kept properly somewhere. --Cowboybebop98 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. The summary might need some wording effort to make the flow look better. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

which section should i put "Japanese rescue team effort" in?

According to Xinhua News Agency,Chinese government accepted the aid of Japanese rescue team at May 15.The first batch, include 31 members, had arrived at the Beijing Capital International Airport at about 9:25 p.m. on May 15, and they were soon transferred to another flight heading for Chengdu, capital of Sichuan Province. which section should i put above part in?(maybe some language error, pls corr them^^,thx a lot!)---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the blood donation is writable. It is one in a thousand that the most of blood donation point is full on blood donator,and most donator should to queue for more than 2 hours to make their donation in some big city in China.---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Rescue effort" should focus on Chinese government's response and action on the earthquake. Any other rescue effort (countries and regions, foreign agency, organizations and individuals ) should be considered aid and thus belongs to their corresponding entry in the "Foreign and domestic aid" section. Current structure of "Rescue effort" section has a overlap with "Foreign and domestic aid" thus generates redundant information and creates confusion. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I put that in "Foreign and domestic aid" section: ) How about the blood donation? ---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is significant. But to allow potentially more content for domestic aid, I singled out a sub section of china mainland. That's where you should add your content. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Aust aid

Regarding aid, does anyone have the exact figures regarding donations from the Sydney Chinese community (SBS News, 6:30PM 15 May 08)? Benlisquare (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

International aid

There are conflicting reports on whether direct assistance was accepted or rejected.

"Despite the devastation, China has rejected offers of help from foreign aid workers, including search-and-rescue experts from Australia, dog handlers from the Czech Republic and firefighters from Japan"[1]

"South Korea and Australia have both had offers of help denied"[2]

"China has already refused offers of help from Australia and South Korea, and a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman today refused to be drawn on whether any other foreign aid teams would be allowed in"[3]

"A foreign ministry spokesman said China welcomed pledges of foreign relief aid, although officials in Japan, Australia and South Korea said offers to send specialized rescue personnel had been declined because of transportation and communication difficulties, including blocked roads and closed airports."[4]

BUT

"On Friday, specialised disaster relief teams from Japan, Russia, South Korea and Singapore were allowed in while other countries who have offered help are still awaiting approval."[5]

"China has accepted offers from South Korea, Singapore and Russia to send rescue teams to earthquake-hit Sichuan province."[6]

All these news items are from within the last 12 hours. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from international coummunities

Comparing the the donation in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake,China receive much lesser symphathy.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong. The nations affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is all small countries, and the donation was factually allocated among them. Those nations did'nt have enough planes, helicopters, or just soldiers at that time. But PRC is a regional power (at least its gov believes it is), and has much bigger economy than the southeast asian countries, so they don't need so much foreign help as the southeast asian countries recieved ( U.S. didn't get a lot of donation in Cyclone Katerina either ). And till now we don't know if this quake had caused more loss than 2004 quake. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Cyclone Nargis,the world seems not happy with Burma.Just comparing the donations received by China and Burma and the those of 2004,the death toll of the two former about 150,000 and the latter 220,000,while the dons really differs too much--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I check the International response to Hurricane Katrina,the dons per deceased are much higher.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What Douglasfrankfort says makes sense to me. That aside, is this kind of comparison meaningful? What is the conclusion that we can reach from this? It sounds nothing more than a complain that you may probably find in a forum. And personally, we should first appreciate the help from the international community. I hope this discussion can stop here. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

Foreign aid =/= International reactions

It is interesting to see that apart from Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong, other big donations are surprisingly from Saudi Arabia (a Muslim middle eastern country) and India (with whom China fought a war in 1962). Back to the topic, I notice that the section has some international reactions by countries who have not pledged aid.. for example Iran. --AI009 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove it just yet - try and fix it. And another reason is because that particular ref is a refname, is it used elsewhere? Confirm that. If all is done, then you can remove it if it cannot be fixed. (Or moved to the Reactions article if it isn't there already.) --haha169 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked people at the Recentism article for help on the international reactions "issue", so maybe something will come from that doktorb _words^deeds 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

Isn't this one nicer?

I decided to make an alternate that is more specific to the area near to the epicentre where it was the strongest. A huge red cloud is not what is usually used to represent earthquakes graphically.~RayLast ^«Talk!» 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if it is only used on this article, but this image is being used on 100+ pages on English and French Wikipedia, 50+ pages on Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, and other pages, as well as being used in Wikinews, etc. On those pages, they are being used as icons, and it is difficult to see the red if it is being used as a small image (aka icons). --haha169 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Icons more or less that size? Is it hard to see the red now? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 02:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's perfect. Good job. --haha169 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No labels Map

I've made a version with no labels so that it can be more easily used by pages in other languages:

Should I change the current one? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great effort. But if the tremor can be felt as far as in Taiwan, then your graph doesn't quite accurately cover all the areas impacted by the earthquake, does it? (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Also, replacing a graph that has been widely used by 20+ WP articles of the same topic with different languages might require more coordination than a discussion here to reach a certain level of consistency. Unless the original graph has major problems, this doesn't seem to be necessary. But your time spent on this is absolutely appreciated. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

My intent with the graph was not about where it has been felt but rather representing the epicentre. Since its reach is hard to determine accurately and it certainly is not circular, having a graph representing an exact earthquake is very hard. Emphasis is therefore placed on the epicentre. The "impact" is also ambiguous, and this graph is definitely covering the seriously affected areas. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer this image. Clearer. Change it, be bold. If worried about causing problems with other pages using the 'original' image (with the larger red bit), use a different name. Thanks for making it. --  Chzz  ►  15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Signs and prediction section

Hello! I am not familiar with the policies on this wiki. The source for the following paragraph seems unreliable, should it be removed?

• On April 26-27, scientists at China's Geophysics Association made a prediction report of a possible M=6 to 7 earthquake in the vicinity of the converging point of Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces just south of Lanzhou. The report was sent to China's Earthquake Bureau on April 30. Geng Qingguo later added that the Ngawa area (阿坝地区) will likely experience an M≥7 earthquake on May 8±10 days. Geng also complained that other scientists tread down his findings and considered them as pseudoscience.

(Source: http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/misc/wenchuan9.txt)

The next paragraph states:

• On May 3, around 20:00 local time, Ngawa Prefecture's Earthquake Relief Authority received a number of phone calls asking them to confirm or deny a rumor that an earthquake had been predicted for Matang Village of Suomo township in Barkam County (马尔康县梭磨乡马塘村). The Authority then searched for the source of the rumors. Barkam County is about 120 kilometers (about 75 miles) northwest of the epicenter of the May 12 earthquake. On May 9, the official website of the Sichuan Provincial Government reported that the provincial seismological bureau denied making any related predictions. The rumors were traced to a video conference where Barkam County's Geological Disasters Prevention Committee told county officials of a possible "Geological disaster" (地质灾害 Dìzhì Zāihài), but the warning misconstrued as a possible "Earthquake disaster" (地震灾害 Dìzhèn Zāihài). Soon after the earthquake, this official statement was removed from the offical website of the Sichuan Provincial Government and other news websites in mainland China.

(Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:9BGkVSc45aEJ:www.sc.gov.cn/zwgk/zwdt/szdt/200805/t20080509_277807.shtml)

With a broken link, of course it is stated that it was later removed, but how may we confirm this? Is there a cached copy for readers to check? Thanks! --Shibo77 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wonder about this part:

• On April 26, nearly 80,000 m³ of water that once filled the Guanyin pond of Baiguo township of Enshi City, Hubei province sank underground with a rumbling sound. Changes in the underground waterflow usually indicate changed seismic conditions.

Is there any established connection between the disappearance of a pond in Hubei province and the earthquake in Sichuan? I've seen Chinese articles about zoo animals' weird behaviour in Taiwan, suggesting it might be signs of the earthquake as well! I don't think we should include such stuff.221.219.24.169 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this part:

• On May 9, an anonymous user posted a thread on the popular Baidu Forums stating that earthquake clouds were observed in Linyi, Shandong (more than 1400km away from the epicenter), and wondered if an M≥6.0 were to occur in the next few days; this was later confirmed by a user from Tongzhou District in Beijing.

Both refers to broken links, and a post in a public forum is hardly a reliable source.

This part is also very dubious. (Colorful clouds in Shaanxi province and earthquake in Sichuan?)

• On May 12, sightings of unusually colorful and luminous cloud formations in two cities of nearby provinces more than 400km north east of the epicenter, each at about 30 and 10 minutes before the earthquake, were filmed and photographed. These colorful clouds were unusual in exhibiting luminous characteristics akin to auroras.

The sources might not be reliable either.221.219.24.169 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted with the explanation "14:05, 18 May 2008 AstroHurricane001 (Talk | contribs) (80,093 bytes) (Rv back par, the Baidu discussions indicate that the claim was made in the first place, not to actually cite the claim in particular, and the flag breaks when you add "Republic of china" so am fixing.)"

However, I agree with you that a forum and two YouTube videos don't really constitute reliable sources. Even if they did, one would still need to cite a source. The Baidu Forums posting was kept, I've replaced it with a cached link that is still working. The luminous clouds was kept because there was also a working link from The Epoch Times, not exactly reliable since it is based on a youku video as well, but at least it's a published source. The toad migration and the Hubei pond drainage was kept as they have working links, but I 've placed "Original Research" tags on them to question how this was linked to as a foreshadowing of this particular earthquake, as this wasn't mentioned in the two cited links. --Shibo77 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Signs and prediction ?!?

What is this silliness in "Signs and prediction" ? Here are some suggestions :

1. Earthquake clouds and chicken entrails are not really NPOV.. unless you can get some data from myth debunkers about how often such predictions are wrong.. I'd settle for some general statistics about how often folklore beliefs are wrong. The two academic publications are quite strong information which is being discounted by including other superstitious garbage without scientific rebuttal. No political rebuttal doesn't count because politicians, especially Chinese politicians, will say anything to save face. So scientific and superstitious predictions must be separated.
2. One should add to the scientific predictions much older historical information about the fault being dangerous. Chen Xuezhong isn't some genius that predicted this in 2002. He build upon a wealth of academic information going back a long way. It's been known that this fault was dangerous long before "the rise of China" yet provincial leaders chose not to enforce China's building codes. Now obviously most people died in older buildings, but quite a lot of people died in buildings built after China passed these codes.

88.162.119.9 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake lights?

It should be at least be mentioned that the scientific explanation for the "Earthquake Lights" is the "circumhorizontal arc" phenomenon. DraxusD (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

References

If your question/comment relates to references, citations, sources, please keep it with this group. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

the death toll of ref 1 is quite confusing

In the first part of the ref.1 page shows "新华网消息：据有关部门统计，截至5月14日21时，汶川地震死亡人数达14866人，其中四川达14463人。"(as of 21.00 on May14),which means the earthquake death toll across China rose to 14,866 by 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, Xinhua learnt from authoritative sources, and 14463 in Sichuan province. But the death roll in table shows as 16665. Which one is right?--Prinz.W (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Add one English page China quake death toll rises to 14,866 by 2:00 p.m. from CCTV,it shows the official death toll is 14,866 --Prinz.W (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We have been (previously) using the table here as 'official', and it's giving the most recent figures some time prior to them hitting BBC and CNN etc. The refs need tidying up though. --  Chzz  ►  17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not reading the table, right. (Do you speak Chinese?) It says the number of "dead" is 14866 and the number of "causality" is 16665. We have to use the former. Also, see [7], which was posted a hour ago and put the official figure at 14866. -- Taku (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to CNN Asia states "The state-run Xinhua news agency has provided death tolls for eight communities in Sichuan province that add up to nearly 20,000, including roughly 7,700 who perished in the town of Yingxiu, near the earthquake's epicenter. CNN cannot independently confirm the tallies.

Whilst not 'independently confirmed', I suspect the Xinhua figures reflect the reality more accurately; the figures are, at this point, only going to rise. I am, however, dedicated to accuracy - so we need to agree on a figure to use - throughout - and amend this article, and the various others currently stating a figure, according to some kind of criterion.  Chzz  ►  21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: should we go with "More than 40,000 dead or missing in Chinese earthquake" as per [Times Online]? At least that would cover things whilst the 'official number' oscillates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly open to the use of sources that are more up-to-date. I just wanted to correct the language so that it reflects what the source is actually saying. (By the way, by cnn I was referring to this: "and the official death toll from the quake had reached 14,866 by Wednesday evening.") I agree that Xinhua figures seem to be reflecting the reality more correctly; 14,866 is probably way below the actual eventual toll. So, I tried a comprise: just mention both "official figures" and xinhua figures in the intro. Though that might be confusing to readers, it'd better to leave this kind of matters to the readers, I think. -- Taku (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the times number, I think the intro should be as concise as possible. Detailed stats like the number of missing or the breakdown of causalities can be given in the body. -- Taku (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

References out of control

This article now desperately needs some housekeeping! I'm doing my bit; I know it's tedious, but please can anyone help checking refs, removing useless ones, etc. Some facts will have to be amended to reflect references.

Basically, lots of people have added info with citations (which is great!) but now, with 134 refs, it is getting a bit silly. Many of the refs back up the same facts and could be amalgamated.

If I'm wrong, and time could be better spent in other ways, please let me know.

--  Chzz  ►  20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up quite a few this morning as well, but I'm sorry if I can't do too much right now. I'll see what I can do. --haha169 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

hope more dies! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.177.31.12 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna remove the above, but...it saddens me. I kinda understand vandellism, having a laugh...but this? I'm trying to track the IP. I'd love to speak to the person. --  Chzz  ►  02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Most likely an immature teenager who doesn't understand fully whats going on. Don't get me wrong - I'm a teenager as well, but I just dislike people who act this way. --haha169 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-English language references

Some of the references have English language translation, others don't, and need it. This is a request for those who can, to please do the translation. I'll help with amalgamating and other reference clean-up. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Translate the whole content of the Chinese refs.? wow~ a big work, I will try to exchange some Chinese refs. to English, maybe find more English refs will batter than translate the whole Chinese refs(~ ~). By the way, this two site maybe usefulCCTV(English),Strong Earthquake hits SW China & China daily ---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; translation of article name only. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese-language References

I noticed there are several users who are adding Chinese-language articles to this article. Since this is English-language Wikipedia, it needs to accommodate as "many" English-language sources as possible. If it is Chinese sources, please provide the English language version. These sources should be verifiable to users who doesn't speak Chinese.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I try to find the English ref. to exchange Chinese later, the ref. from Xinhuanet.com and cctv.com are easy to do so, however those from sohu.com,163.com and other non-Gov-cover Chinese website maybe hard to exchange---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of these sources are unnecessary, and I'm sure a majority of these information can also be found on the English-language references. People really need to start reference English-language sources on this article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep,but this time ,however, most of the lastest official statements and news were sent in nearly 24 hours live news program in CCTV-news channel ,therefore those newest article maybe only could find in Chinese. I recommend to pay more attention on non-Chinese-based news agency like BBC or CNN(but those two website probably can not browse in some part of China mainland,GFW- -|||).Now I've changed all Simplified-Chinese ref which I can find in English,but some still have no refill---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Currently, the statement "On May 12, sightings of unusually colorful and luminous cloud formations in two cities of nearby provinces more than 400km north east of the epicenter, each at about 30 and 10 minutes before the earthquake, were filmed and photographed" in the "Signs and Predictions" section lists two youtube videos and an article in EpochTimes that seems to rely solely on photographs posted in an online forum as its sources. Are those sources reliable enough? Mimson (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Youtube videos. Leave the epochtimes, we'll establish its notability come GAN. --haha169 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

cited webpages missing

Two cited web pages, one mentioning the toad "migration" and the other mentioning earthquake clouds, are no longer available. However, they are still available in Google's cache. [8] [9] Would it be appropriate to upload these cached pages to another website and direct users there? If so, this should be done quickly, since cached pages don't last forever. These pages will probably be deleted once Google realizes that the original pages don't exist. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the part about Geng Qingguo's prediction. The Chinese article in the citation says that the source of this "prediction" is a blogger. See Wiki Chinese for more detail.221.219.24.169 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seismic event(s)

Place all subsections regarding epicenter, tremors, aftershocks, etc. in this section. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Epicenter of Sichuan Earthquake Moving?

I have heard numerous reports and rumors that the epicenter of the Sichuan May 12, 2008 earthquake is "moving" in a Northwesterly direction, and that neighboring Shaanxi and Gansu provinces may experience serious earthquakes soon. Is this even possible? Even the "counselor" of a large university in Xi'an informed the student body of this danger, and emails from friends as far away as Beijing have come to me with this warning. Where can one view diagrams of the tectonic plates and find some discussion of these issues? Thanks! China2008 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The United States Geological Survey website would probably be an excellent place to look. Try Googling it with this syntax along with what you're looking for.   — C M B J   10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search for you, and here's a few:

• Geologic Investigations Map I-2800 - has very high resolution images available
• This Dynamic Planet - fully interactive world map with tectonic plates
• Google Maps - world map with tectonic plates added
• USGS Asia Earthquake Information - some useful maps
• USGS Earthquake Center
• Earthquake Notification Service - free worldwide email & sms notification of earthquakes within 30 minutes (or 5 minutes in the US)
• USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
• China Geological Survey - China's equivalent to the USGS

All works of the United States federal government are in the public domain, so there's an endless amount of useful information available for anyone to study. Don't forget to check Wikipedia's article on tectonic plates as well. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need any further assistance, or if you can't find a solid answer to your question.   — C M B J   11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a geologist, but I do not believe that it is correct to say that the epicenter of the original quake is moving (although its exact location may continue to be refined as more data comes in). However, the *aftershocks* are definately dispersed in a NW direction from the epicenter of the original quake, presumably along a fault line, though they do not appear to be specifically moving further away with time. See the USGS site here: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/105_35.php 68.73.94.131 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

68.73.94.131's point is absolutely correct. On May 25, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM local time the biggest aftershock in this area happened at SICHUAN-GANSU BORDER REGION, CHINA, which is right in the northwest direction from the original epicenter. Refer to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2008slat.php Vikizh (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnitude 7.8 or 7.9?

The Chinese news on TV says that the earthquake was in fact a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, but many sources also say that it is a 7.9 earthquake, so what's the deal? WinterSpw (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that, which is the real number? WinterSpw (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Last time I checked, we have 2 numbers in the lead, each coming from different sources using different units of measurement. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Both values are valid; they are calculated via different algorithms. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now it is like China Seismological Bureau: 8.0Ms 8.3Mw, USGS: 8.0Ms 7.9Mw Yuanyelele (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tremors in Thailand

This is to respond to the concern raised by 68.73.94.131, who noted that tremor in Thailand continuing for 7 to 8 mins is probably an error. I don't read Chinese, but the source [10], which was used to support this claim, doesn't appear to say anything about this. In the source the name Thailand appears only in this sentence: "日本東京甚至遠在三千公里外的泰國曼谷鬧區蘇坤蔚路與沙通路上的高樓，也感受到強震。", which doesn't say anything specific about the durance of the tremor. On the other hand, the Chinese article corresponding to this article has this: "泰國曼谷：地震後六分鐘後感到震動，持續了七八分鐘。", which translates to "Thailand: tremor was felt 6 mins after the quake, continuing for 7 to 8 mins." I'm no seismologist and can't tell if this fact is incredible or not. -- Taku (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuva felt tremors, but not Xinjiang???

It seems extremely unlikely. If it's purely a matter of distance, then it's impossible. Tuva is farther from Sichuan than probably any point in Xinjiang. Миборовский (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm, perhaps somebody felt a few tremors in Xinjiang, but there were none reported? Earlier, someone asked why tremors were felt in Bangladesh but not in India. Who knows, maybe there are more people there to feel the quake, but is the ref a reliable source? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no geologist, but could it be anything to do with rock/soil type or terrain? --Joowwww (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which direction the tremors spread and where people live. My speculation is that Xinjiang, with a population density of 11.8 /km², may not have enough witnesses or news coverage for this matter, but it may not be newsworthy anyway.--Skyfiler (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuva should be less populated than Xinjiang. But I also wonder how reliable the info on tremors felt in Tuva is. Did Russian media report anything about it? Yaan (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual. I remember in physics class that one type of wave (forgot the name) travels through the metals in magma of Earth and it got deflected as a result of the core. So some places won't receive the wave while other places receive it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Taiwan a country?

It's not widely acknowledged as a independent country as far as I know, at least not a "complete" country to be placed besides thai, burma or china. I don't know how to change it to "countries and regions affected". If that's not possible than I recommend using TPE for chinese taipei, the official name used by taiwan in many international organizations, including IOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a "complete" country. It has its own president, government, and army seperate from that of any other country. Chinese Taipei is the designated name used by Taiwan, to participate in most international organizations, due to the persistent diplomatic pressure from the People's Republic of China, which does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a sovereign nation.--Kenbei (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So many people died. And you are arguing the status of Taiwan.--Haofangjia (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Various people keep removing Taiwan without even discussing it although they've been asked to explain themselves here on numerous occasions. Can something be done about this? 68.73.94.131 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use this as a forum; the status of the government that rules on the island formerly known as Formosa is relevant due to the way in which this article discusses the countries that we affected. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant wrt the earthquake, particularly since the description is now changed to "countries and regions" to appease the PRC partisans. Taiwan is at the very least a region; stop pretending that it doesn't exist. This isn't a forum for your political beliefs. This is an encyclopedia. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can revert them. Such deletions against consensus aren't allowed. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This "ROC vs TW vs Mainland" issue has been going on for ages and this is NOT the place. If you wanna argue, please go here ---> Political status of Taiwan, there will be tons of people waiting to argue that issue with you and I promise, you will have a blast, literally. Now, let's drop this topic & update this entry as more information comes in. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me end this now. Whether or not Taiwan is a country or not doesn't matter. California isn't a country, yet we say "California was affected by an Earthquake in 1906..." not "The United States was...". It doesn't matter if PROC doesn't recognize Taiwan's independence, we're just here to offer encyclopedic information. --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean you feel OK to hear "California AND United States"?Helloterran (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, people mention California instead of the U.S. to make it more specific. Same thing with British Columbia, and similarly, Taiwan. I do not want this to be another battleground for Chinese politics, so this discussion should be closed immediately. Wikipedia is in no way endorsing Taiwan's independence. See Political status of Taiwan.--haha169 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why not use list Taiwan in "other entities"? That's certainly NPOV, while ROC is certainly not.Helloterran (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you do not make sense, Haha169. Your argument is only valid if we mention Taiwan and not China. Like Helloterran said, mentioning both Taiwan and China is the equlivalent to mentioning California and the United States, if it is assumed that Taiwan is defined as within China. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just keep all the places, whether they be countries, special administrative regions, or whatever, in one group and don't try to figure out which is which. This isn't the time or the place. Readin (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is no place to discuss the status of Taiwan. Both the Communist Government and the KMT Government concur with their own version of the one China policy. In order to keep the status quo, we differentiate the two regions under the administration of their respective governments as Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC). The generic name China encompasses two entities. Of course this is simplistic, but would do here. 210.176.70.2 (talk)

Of course this is a place to discuss, since this is the only article I see that gives a clear distinction between China and Taiwan. As far as I know, other articles mainly distinguish it with "mainland China" and "Taiwan", geographically. I'm changing it to "mainland China". 202.40.139.170 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. When we put China and Taiwan in the same list, they should be differentiated as "mainland China" and "Taiwan", or "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Readin (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I listed it as Mainland China before I turned in last night. Who reverted it? At least its mainland now...--haha169 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Wikipedia's NPOV for mainland China and Taiwan isn't that hard to follow. When you are talking about governments and officials say Mainland China, PRC, ROC, or if you are mentioning ROC for the first time, say ROC (Taiwan). If you are just talking about places, say China or Taiwan. People are dying here. This is no place to discuss the status of Taiwan. Just stick with the rules and leave it at that please.--Pyl (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to end this, but it doesn't exactly work. Its been getting easier, though. --haha169 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

YES. TAIWAN IS A COUNTRY. Taiwan elects its own president, vice-president and so-forth. Should Taiwan not be a country, it wouldn't have it's own electoral system. This is the very same way should you be considering that Vatican City is a country as well. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Location of Zipingpu Dam

The Zipingpu Dam is said to be 20 miles east of the epicenter. There is a reservoir just a little north of that point, at 31.0877, 103.7743. There is a dam, a hydroelectric plant is less certain.Friendly Person (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dam is 20 km (not miles) east of the epicenter. Look here and zoom in to the blue mark, there you will see this, and then compare it with the picture here. Then you will see it is the same dam and you can verify the 20 km by yourself. Ansiwen (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a little trouble reading that last webpage, but the lat-long of that dam is 31.0359 103.5745. There ought to be an article on this dam, its history etc.Friendly Person (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Catastrophology

The name of the journal in Chinese is "灾害学". If you click on that link on the cited page, it leads you to this page, which has the journal's English name (and a grainy photo of its cover). --Voidvector (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest non-combat airlifting service in Chinese history

Don't think it is a good idea to create a sub-section for that. This article is not about hailing PLA accomplishment during the earthquake rescue effort. one para in the rescue effort should suffice. Or if the sub-section is to stay, the title should be adjusted. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Agreed -- one heavily edited paragraph on the airlift is enough. The subsection is 1) heavy on gvmt propaganda (sounds like it was written to placate people who criticized the Chinese gvmt for not getting to the epicenter sooner), and 2) the title isn't even supported by the text of the subsection (though is is supported by the source cited). 68.73.94.131 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed ,it is not suitable for Wikipedia, but I admire those PLA soldiers---God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Himalayas

According to the British Geological Survey quoted in the article: "The seismicity of central and eastern Asia is caused by the northward movement of the India plate at a rate of 5cm/year and its collision with Eurasia, resulting in the uplift of the Himalaya and Tibetan plateau and associated earthquake activity." Would anyone care to speculate (or report) on the effect this earthquake has had on the height of the Himalayas? Is Everest now higher than it was? If so, how much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphbk (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Himalayas have been rising by about 5 millimetres per year, which is caused by the Indo-Australian Plate being crushed under the Eurasian Plate at a rate of 67 millimetres per year. From what I gather, this stress was the cause of the May 12th Earthquake. --71.166.133.153 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A particular statement

User:Benjwong added a statement to the article about how the Apple Daily newspaper said that the earthquake is "a punishment from the almighty because of China's political repression."

The statement definitely needs to be removed because it was placed in the "Countries and Regions" section. Unless this newspaper represents the official view of Hong Kong's government, and not simply any circulation's opinion piece, they are "irrelevant" for this section.

Most importantly, the source Benjwong cited about the Apple Daily statement is inaccessible (check the reference). The site might be a paid subscription site, hence the article only contains a brief paragraph, but nothing on there matches with the claim Benjwong wrote on this article.

Benjwong responded on the revision history by saying "Sorry, this is a poor excuse for censorship" in response to me removing his statement, and "often do you have your own territory criticizing your own country in a crisis" in regards to why this statement should be kept and its relevance. I've got to say, in my view, this statement is not a "sane" criticism, more of an extremely inflammatory comment (and that the source can not even be accessed).

I don't want to revert his edit again because he is simply not responding to my reasoning. I hope other users can weigh in on this.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the comment can be verified and found to be notable, its in the wrong place; it should be under the "Reactions" entry, not the "Aid" section. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Apple daily is one of the sources that is NOT a Communist Party mouthpiece. You cannot mark something as an inflammatory comment, when this view is clearly representing the people's view. Also I am not stopping you from paying a subscription. Benjwong (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You completely lost me here: "You cannot mark something as an inflammatory comment, when this view is clearly representing the people's view."??? Who wrote this article by the way? If it is an editorial piece, where is the author's name?--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Benjwong should stop. However:

NOTE TO BOTH EDITORS INVOLVED IN THIS EDIT WAR You have both breached the WP:3RR policy. Balthazarduju less so because I was involved in one of the revisions, however, I suggest that you two stop immediately or else this will be reported. --haha169 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted Benjwong's contribution twice. The last edit I did wasn't reverting, but correcting the statistics in the table based on the reference.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the "Reactions" entry, even though I agree that it is not notable that a paper that was created to criticize the PRC is criticizing the PRC. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, I thought that was a revert. The edit summary sure sounded like it. But still, this needs to calm down. Tell Benjwong to come over here and see popular consensus against him.--haha169 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys have against the source? It has been used in thousands of pages before. Benjwong (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The same article has been used in thousands of pages?--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Benjwong is at it again. Setting aside the notability issue for now, I moved the content to the correct entry (Reactions to the EQ), and he still reverts in its entirety (with bad cite and all) to the wrong section (Aid). You guys need to report him. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone also removed the fact that the top 10 richest Chinese people have only donated a minuscule amount of money. The citation comes from UDN, which is one of the top 3 papers in Taiwan. Blueshirts (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I found your edit, and moved both statements to a new criticism section. Benjwong (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Benjwong you are just plain vandalizing the article here. Here is the source you cited to the statement from Apple Daily [11] and the title on top of the article says Nurse loss leads to more recruits and senior posts. Show us where on this article that supported your claim?--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted it. It was in the International Aid section and it had nothing to do with aid. --221.222.229.148 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears they have moved (or deleted?) the digest news since some 8 hrs ago. I don't know at the moment. I have sent them an email, let's see if I can get a response. I copied the contents straight out literally copy-paste. Also look at the very bottom of the link. It has 100 five-star votes. If this is not some accumulation, then it is unusually high. These pages usually get less than 5 votes on average. Benjwong (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is not a scientific explanation of the quake. It looks like a politic-oriented viewpoint. In fact I think it has nothing to do with this disaster, some guys just wanna use every odds to criticize CPC, even this horrible human catastrophe. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 08:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. If the local media can't criticise the government during a horrible tragedy, they should just shutdown. After HK became a PRC territory, the local media has been a puppet at times. A PLA soldier was shown on live news declining to help the victims. The solder said he was here to help the dead, not the living. Why can't I find sources covering this? Obviously that is relevant to the quality of the rescue effort. Benjwong (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms against government's rescue effort should be welcomed as long as they are well sourced. But statement like "a punishment from the almighty because of China's political repression" is neither a fact nor a criticism based on reason or knowledge. It is just a superstition, a reaction from a party that wouldn't show any respect to the dead and the living that are still struggling. It doesn't belong anywhere in this article. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

What you posted wasn't intelligent criticism -- it was ridiculous name calling. By all means, include actual, specific, *sourced* criticism of PRC's response to, or preparation for, the earthquake. But leave out anything that reduces to nothing more than saying "the PRC sucks!" 68.73.94.131 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, in the future try to respond to legitimate criticism of your edits with something other than cries of censorship. Not only will you get further that way, but you'll also avoid mocking actual acts of censorship, which I gather you are well acquainted with. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article by international herald tribute, similarly mentioning of the ties with the storm, train wreck and the superstition. There are no name calling, aggression or religious overtone. My complaining of censorship has to do with wiki editors deleting things because they want to avoid another negative perspective being presented. Is unfortunate that the link on scmp looks to be overwritten by today's daily digest. That was 3rd party verification. Benjwong (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're compounding your WP:3RR crime with assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who disagrees with you (plus apparently asserting the ability to read everyone's mind). No one here is trying to censor negative perspectives -- in fact, we have all gone out of our way to encourage them. We've already listed the numerous problems with your edit. I suggest you set aside your stubborn paranoia and reread them. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:3RR certainly can happen when multiple users with the same view gang up on one user. This is nothing new. I tried to tell it exactly as is, good or bad. If you want to claim it as stubborn paranoia. Doesn't bother me. Benjwong (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here contributed based on his/her own judgement and I didn't see an indication of sock puppet use. Saying that we "gang up on one user" will only explain your stubborn edit style. Please drop it and help improving the article in the way suggested by most contributors in this discussion. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

There is a difference between valid criticism eg: endemic corruption led to shoddy building construction and saying that "the almighty" was smiting a country. Between the naming of the newspaper and the statement I have to ask: does Apple Daily espouse a specific religious stance? And if so what is it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a religous stance. It is the actual mood of the event. Very little news sources have reported it as direct as Apple Daily and scmp did. Instead of saying this should be denied because it is not scientific fact. You should question why millions of people think they are being targeted by heaven etc. They certainly didn't think the olympics was some kind of blessing. The psychology of this event is unique and deserve a spot on wikipedia. Benjwong (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that millions of people think they incurred the wrath of god? Do you have a valid source for this assertation? Something even resembling statistics? Or just a tabloid from hong kong that takes it's name from the assumption of the original sin episode in genesis as the origin of the need for news? Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

to add to what Simonm233 says, yes, if you have some verifiable evidence that millions of people in China believe that the EQ is some god's punishment for the sins of the CCP, then by all means present it. That would indeed be notable. HOWEVER, your original edit demonstrated no such thing, it was simply one editorial opinion from a source that can always be expected to bash the PRC. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the way you guys are asking for sources. Let me remind you the ccp is quite an authoritarian system. They are not going to let any local media conduct such a survey. Apple Daily proclaimed these views, because that is how the regular person on the streets feel. You know what, the media also did NOT actually conduct a study to find out whether a million people are really sad either? Yet they are reporting it as such. How come you guys aren't challenging that. Benjwong (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think people who are able to contribute here are all well aware of CCP's control of news and media. If there are reports that are challenging Chinese government's news block in this disaster, thye will be here (they might already be here). As far as I know, numerous media including CNN have been there reporting for days. And you think CNN wouldn't be among the first if there is anything there is to challenge Chinese government? Go get them. No one will stop you from criticizing Chinese government with verifiable evidence that has actual, solid content. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Without some form of evidence that the "man on the street" feels this way there is no notability to the statement. I have lots of friends in China, none of them have expressed a feeling of being punished by any sort of deity or supernatural force as a result of the quake. The thing is that this would constitute a non-statistically backed, un-notable argument against "man on the street" belief in divine punisment as the cause of the quake. Likewise a statement from a possibly religious source with a definate political axe to grind that cites no statistics is not a notable or valid source. It's easy enough to challenge China on the stuff they do wrong that IS notable and verifiable and often quantifiable. Throwing in random tabloid nonsense just clouds the issue. Furthermore this page is not the best place to be making challenges of China's political system except how it directly referrs to the earthquake or it's aftermath. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The scmp crew emailed me back. Apparently the daily digest section (which summarize all local news in English) can not be posted online for more than a day. Otherwise it violates the other news media's copyrights. You can email them and verify that this article did indeed exist on the apple daily on that date. It just won't show up online again for you to verify with. So this one has to be dropped. Benjwong (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of neologisms in this page

Please don't add the neologism "netizen" to this article. It's not a part of standard English vocabulary. Even if the source says this, articles certainly aren't required to reproduce the contents of sources word for word. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for information about why neologisms should not be used when perfectly good standard vocabulary exists. Anyway, I don't see how the source could possibly say this when it isn't even published in English. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms doesn't mean they are prohibited. netizen is not original research (it is an wikipedia article to start with) and it has verifiability (see netizen). You can also find it in most of the online English dictionary, including Merriam-Webster. The source is in Chinese, but netizens is how it will be translated as in here. Anyway, I am OK with internet user for the sake of avoiding edit war, but please don't confuse it with Chinese citizens again. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Most online dictionaries are full of internet neologisms. That does not mean that they are acceptable English. As a native English speaker, I can assure you that "netizen" is no where close to being commonly accepted; and it sounds awkward as heck. Unless you're writing for a cyberpunk journal, "internet user" is much, much preferable. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, the Chinese equivalent of this word sounds just as awkward and I never use it other than quoting from others, but it didn't keep it from being widely used in the news and media in China as the source in this article does. Internet user has its own literal Chinese translation and it is not exactly the same as what we refer to as Wang Min (net citizen). Like I said, internet user is acceptable given the fact that Wang Min (netizen) is not widely accepted outside China and maybe a few other countries, but its worth pointing out that they do not convey identical meaning. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm... would the Chinese phrase "Wang Min" be closer in meaning to "blogger" than the more general "internet user"? Unlike "netizen", "blogger" has been widely accepted and is often used in English language media to describe anyone who publishes pretty much anything on the web. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no. "Wang Min" literally translate to "Net (Wang)" and "Citizen (Min)", which refers to "actively involved internet users". They actively joined discussions in various issues and sometimes their voice is so big and so in-sync, that it can not be ignored by the government. Wang Min is beyond the random internet user who checks emails twice a day. It more or less represents a group of internet users that have developed a strong opinion. It has very little connection with blogger. Hope this makes sense. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to change a source to make it sound like all Chinese were being criticised when they were not. Unfortunately I don't speak Chinese. I wanted to correct a word that does indeed sound "awkward as heck" and reverted to the translation that had been suggested. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

This is a pretty good article, B-class is actually the highest WPCHINA-internal rating. For obscure historical reasons WPCHINA does not use the A-class rating. The next higher rating would be WP:GA, for which an article must go through the Good Article review process. However, one of the requirements for a Good Article is that it be stable, and this being a current event some weeks or even months will have to pass for that. --slashem (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, GAN will certainly not come until a long time later. Does WP:China really not have an A-rating? Odd, however it may be due to this wikiproject's small group of editors. Some wikiprojects are just small like that... --haha169 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Places affected Comment

BTW I think it's silly to say "Places affected: China". That's like saying, "Places affected: Europe". Be more specific. --slashem (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "countries affected" is better.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 01:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it is hard to be specific while being succinct at the same time. For example, since the earthquake killed some people outside Sichuan, simply putting Sichuan as "Places affected" wouldn't be correct. -- Taku (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Three Gorges project

China's deadly earthquake: Was the Three Gorges reservoir a trigger?[[12]]

Bc789 added the content above with the bare URL attached. Removed it since it needs some tweak. Also, since it is a bit technical, someone need to take a look at it to see if it is noteworthy or simply nonsense. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

People, please stop adding original research and speculation from blogs in to wikipedia. No one is denying that this is a possible cause, we just want to see sourced peer-reviewed scientific evidence and a properly written segment. Shiyang (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

need we open a new section about the 3-days national mourning ?

I believe it is the bigest mourning Since 1989 affair.There are more than 10000 poeple to Tian'anmen Sq. for mourning and my voice was totally lost- ----God Bless China- Prinz (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, make a new section call "Aftermath" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree was well Showtime (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support this cause. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop. Do not make a new section. Everything can be integrated into the "Reactions" section of Mainland China, or even better, some parts can even go to the main article, Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake. --haha169 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no new section? Everything (related to reactions to the quake) can be integrated, but it doesn't have to be. A long section is better spitted into multiple ones, in my opinion. Also, I made this point before, but do we really need Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake? It duplicates a lot of materials here. It also contains quite a bit of no-so-significant information, which can be eliminated. -- Taku (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This really is a problem. 3-day mourning, aid, rescue efforts, they are all "reactions to 2008 Sichuan earthquake"Yuanyelele (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my reasons! They can all be merged to reactions. This article is long enough as is - we don't need a section for 3-day mourning. That is a subsection of reactions! --haha169 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I contributed images to the "Reactions within China" section, and they were all deleted. Why? No reason was stated to me. Benlisquare (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Benlisquare, I was the one who removed them, twice. Please, check the edit summaries. And since they are way back in the back log now; I will tell you the reason: They are low quality. They are under false license (they are not free if they are screenshots of TV). They do not fall under fair-use. They do not contribute to the article, especially in such big masses. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Phenomenon analysis"

I suggest removal of this paragraph. It's full of original researches which are totally pseudoscientific. Flora (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - This belongs to an article on Chinese Superstitions, if any, definitely not here given its original and pseudoscientific nature. Shiyang (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thank you for bringing this up. I couldn't agree more. Given the fact that the whole idea was poorly sourced (none of the sources are major media) and supported only by superstitious internet users, by no means it deserves a whole section with three sub sections. I think this is far from a constructive addition to the article. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Comment - BS. It is all well sourced from NYtimes, Taipei times, HK standard, international herald tribune. They are willing to print what the PRC is afraid to. Also Cowboybebop98 your reverts are ridiculous. Here are the some deleted. Does anyone think these numbers don't add up? There are sources to prove these dates very easily. It's a matter of adding it up yourself and whether that counts as WP:Original research. Benjwong (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The snow storm also ended on February 6: 2+6=8.
• The Communist party leaders Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao were born in 1942 year of the Horse. For that particular cycle, the year date began on February 15: 2+1+5=8.
• The year of the Rat ends on January 25 in 2009 using the Chinese calendar: 1+2+5=8.

Regarding the above, I was already very clear in my revert log. You can come up with all kinds of combination that leads to this kind of "coincidence". (And that's what Fengshui masters do to make a living actually) All that takes is your imagination. None of your sources relate these to the earthquake and you put them here as a "analysis" for the sichuan earthquake, you tell me how is it not original research? Let us wait for other editors to weigh in. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

I would've immediately removed your section if I chose a "ridiculous" way. Given your edit history in this article (see earlier discussion) , I would suggest you to calm down and examine my reverts carefully. And don't relate anything with CCP's news control since CCP don't believe in superstition thus why would they care?! BTW, leave NY times out of your "reliable" sources, you merely used the time in the article to build your eight number theory supported by your superstitious friends. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Hang on I'll be back. Benjwong (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be "terminated", :-). I was going to take a wikibreak, but couldn't help jumping in after seeing this "interesting" section. I already had my opinion presented and I am sure other editors will help resolve this issue. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Oppose To me, this paragraph is full of B.S., BUT, I don't think we should remove it. See also HIV#AIDS_denialism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Some of this stuff is interesting - but does it really merit notability on a Wikipedia article? I doubt it.--haha169 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - also, Benjwong; You haven’t had the best record on this article. You were involved in an edit war, and now you are doing something quite controversial and losing your temper over it. I suggest you calm down, go edit some other articles, and then come back. If you wish to stay here, then please use a calm manner when discussing improvements to the article. We want you to be ‘’’bold’’’, but when your edits are controversial, you have to be able to remove it without hesitation. Wikipedia is an ongoing project, and it is forever changing. The edits on even my biggest project will most likely be 90% gone in a decade or so. Change is good. --haha169 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I believe the consensus is strongly for removing that paragraph, so it has been removed. I count 5 support and 1 oppose. Besides, it is obviously a fringe theory. EgraS (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I just want to comment that I found user Benjwong isn't even the slightest bit subtle when it comes to presenting information that slants to his POV. He already added a statement beforehand citing a "non-existent" article saying how the earthquake was a punishment from god on the Chinese government. Given his recent edit, it should comes as no suprise. Any information about phenomenon and astrology is interesting and in certain occasions would be a nice addition to an article...except the way Benjwong's been editing it, which laughably presented them in a chronological matter and incorrectly riping info from other articles (i.e. the New York Times article) that mentioned nothing about numerical association to support his view. If Benjwong continues, it would be difficult for any readers to take this article seriously at all.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Numerology and astrological correspondences are not of an appropriate tone for a disaster article. This is about as notable as the "9/11 Wingdings" phenomenon. Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think I made the mistake of trying to squeeze in something very complicated with limited sources. It is coming off as sounding unfriendly or worse. Let's pretend this one didn't happen. Benjwong (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and welcome back. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Neutrality

No criticism of the government response, no criticism of building standards, but glowing descriptions of the government and private efforts - while understandable given the current situation, this is still an encyclopedia with standards that require neutrality. For example, the sentences "People rushed to donate blood" or "a wave of donations swept every walk of life in Mainland China" are all but neutral and encyclopedic. In fact they are lifted from the Xinhua source, which is not a reliable source for this kind of information. Even worse, Xinhua is used as a source for the government response, what even given that the Chinese government is more open now than it used to be is still not ensuring that this article is factual and neutral. Novidmarana (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for criticisms, please add the material to the article to improve its neutrality. I made some minor editing to the citations, and I gathered that there were many BBC, Reuters and AFP sources in addition to Xinhua. The building standards are talked about in the "Property damage" section. Mostly I've found positive news reports about the government's response, many of them describing the government's unusual openness or contrasting the response with Myanmar's response to its cyclones, however I did read about many criticisms of the agencies involved in the Earthquake's prediction, and this has its own section under "Signs and prediction". Of course, please improve the article's neutrality if you feel it needs more material on the side of criticisms of the government and its building codes. --Shibo77 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Any analysis at this time is just speculation. Unless and only if Western engineers are allowed to inspect the ruins will there truly be a "correct" version of what had occurred. EgraS (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I concur that at this time any analysis is largely speculative I disagree that engineers must be (capital W) western of origin in order to find a correct version of events. This is in part because, despite the rampant problems WITH corruption in China there is also a trend in the central government to curtail some of the worst excesses in the past years. I'd not be surprised if engineers were allowed to make unbiassed analysis as a basis for the creation of a few scapegoats to assuage public outcry over unsafe building practices. It's unlikely this event will stop construction industry corruption but I don't think that corrupt developers whose buildings fell over because of skimming will get much protection from Beijing. Again, this is speculation, but so is the assumption that Beijing will cover for corrupt developers in Sichuan. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why western media's coverage about the PRC IS so biased. Not everything the government do is bad. So what if "People rushed to donate blood", do you rather want to have them not? Just because sometime is from Xinhua doesn't mean it's propaganda. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Say what you want "People rushed to donate blood" is journalese and not neutral and encyclopedic. And face it Xinhua is just not a reliable source for things like that and it is not up to the editor to cherry-pick and decide whether a specific article is propaganda or not. So please don't change the meaning of what I said, and avoid the Western media are biased nonsense. Novidmarana (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All newsmedia, everywhere is biassed. Xinhua has a clear pro-PRC bias. Other news sources have a clear anti-PRC bias. Thus nonsense is an inappropriate comment for references to western bias as nobody can legitimately deny the existence of bias in any media source. That being said I'm uncertain that the western bias in media is relevant with regard to blood donations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe an earthquake is a controversial topic now. Everyone needs to calm down - just because the topic is based in China, and China is a communist nation (see Red Scare), you don't have to jump on every opportunity. I'm not addressing you, personally, but there have been way too many accusations of NPOV violation within the article, when the article is using not only Xinhua, but BBC, CNN, New York Times, and various other sources. --haha169 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Cross of Taiwan

The swift response of the Red Cross of Taiwan is notable in light of how after the 1999 earthquake in Taiwan aid from the international Red Cross was slowed by interference from China.

When a deadly earthquake hit central Taiwan in 1999, China's insistence that aid from the Red Cross and Russia be channeled through the mainland delayed its arrival. Taipei said at the time that China had also prevented regional World Health Organization experts from visiting the scene.[13]

My writing skills aren't much good. Anyone feel like working this into the article? See also H. J. Res. 70 106th: Providing for expedited emergency humanitarian assistance, disaster relief assistance, and medical assistance to the people of Taiwan. Readin (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the discussion in the section just above. I added a short sentence about the quickness and openness of China's response citing the Economist. Without risking sounding editorial, I don't know what can be done more. (I'm not opposing to the mention of this kind of stuff but not sure about how it can be done neutrally.) -- Taku (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I added the information under Taiwan's response. If in the future there is a section of criticism or assessment, the information can be copied there. Blueshirts (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor clarification

From the article

On the evening of May 18, CCTV-1 hosted a special four-hour program called The Giving of Love (爱的奉献), hosted by regulars from the CCTV New Year's Gala and continual coverage anchor Bai Yansong, and attended by a wide range of entertainment, literary, business and political figures from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Donations of the evening totalled 1.5 billion Chinese Yuan ($US 208 million). At 11:30 in the evening, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singaporean entertainers Joey Yung, Nicholas Tse, Wakin Chau, JJ Lin and Zhang Mingmin sang a song titled Tomorrow will be better.[100]

Was the 11:30 singing part of the 4 hour special (unfortunately I can't read the referenced source document). If it was, then with the presence of a Singaporean entertainter, shouldn't the earlier sentence read, "attended by a wide range of entertainment, literary, business and political figures from mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore."?Readin (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Media Broadcasts

Can anyone tell us What are the Chinese Media (mainland) being shown during the 3-days of mourning? because I've noticed that NHK World Premium has suspended their broadcasts [14], Hunan TV looks to me have suspended all of it's programming (except news) and CCTV International channels are only showing News bulletins about Sichuan Earthquake (except CCTV9 which still showns "Documentary", "New Frontier")

210.4.42.191 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did shove on some images of screenshots that I made, but someone deleted them, without giving any reason. I have satellite TV, and I am able to recieve Chinese channels. Practically all provincial channels have their logo black and white, and broadcast CCTV-1 footage. Even the children's cartoon channels (KAKU, Jinkaton, etc) take from CCTV. All CCTV channels (except 7 and 10) broadcast the same material. As for Hong Kong/Taiwan media, "Xing Kong" (a "Star" channel) and Channel V China feed from CCTV-1, and Taiwan channel TVB8 has the logo in B&W, but still broadcasts entertainment shows. CETV feeds from Chongqing TV. Phoenix TV (HK) did not change its logo, but they're broadcasting non-stop news regarding the earthquake. I can back this up with photographic evidence. Benlisquare (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo evidence here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mourn_channels1.jpg Benlisquare (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

I just added few figures and revised for update: including 40,854 in Sichuan province, 29,328 people were missing and nearly 300,000 were injured.Afp.google.com, China quake death toll tops 51,000--Florentino floro (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

injuries count?

Hi. Should we add an injuries count to the death toll table, and add the info to each of the city/prefecture areas? The Chinese Wikipedia has one, and I think it's possible to obtain it from the sina.com source. Also, since most of the interwikis are slower than us (other than the Chinese interwiki, it seems), should someone who can read the interwikis update them when nessecary? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The breakdown of injuries count is quite relevant. The numbers of the missing are probably interesting too. The only issue here is the layout and the length of the article. Adding more details to the table would make it wider, squeaking text. Maybe the table shouldn't be floated right as it is now. -- Taku (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. On the Chinese Wikipedia, the table is hidden and can be accessed with a click. Maybe we should do that too, or would it complicate access by our readers? Also, it may be possible to address the longness of the article by splitting it into an article series, but I've seen worse (longer articles). Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nifty. I think this hidden table idea works. I'm probably going to implement it, if someone didn't beat me to do it. As for the longness, I don't personally like the split because it tends to hinder readability. On the other hand, that path might be inevitable because it doesn't seem we have seen the end of the story; the death toll still rising, etc. -- Taku (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't hide the death toll table. It is not too long or large. It became too small and invisible after collapsed. It's difficult for readers to notice such a hidden table. Please keep it visible. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Warning System

I added important info about China's lack of an EQ early warning system, like eg Japan has. The difficulty is in where to put this. I opted to split out the "signs and predictions" section into "predictions" and "early warning system", since they are not the same thing. Any better ideas? 68.73.94.131 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But is this really relevant at all? It would be more interesting if the section talks about how this lack of the warning system affected the outcome; that is, hypothetically speaking, is it the case that there would have been significantly less death toll if there were the early warning. I'm not reading stuff like this mostly on a Japanese newspaper. -- Taku (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cinematic portrayal

• Jackie Chan announced making a film on the Sichuan earthquake and stated: ““Tomorrow we have big meeting with some directors, some scriptwriters—why? I want to make the movie about the earthquake because there’s so many touching stories; through this movie, we will be able to show the whole world what happened. This will also be another way to raise money; I want to do whatever I can to help.” He already donated $ 1.57 million to the victims.thaindian.com, Jackie Chan plans China earthquake moviewww.gmanews, Jackie Chan to produce film about Chinese earthquake --Florentino floro (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The announcement should be considered a reaction within China. The addition of this section will make more sense when the movie is out and gaining both foreign and domestic notability (which will likely be the case but not yet). I moved it to the proper section with some adjustment (removed some insignificant quotes) (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC))