Jump to content

Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KringleK (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 13 May 2008 (→‎Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Chinese Taipei

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

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

Requested move

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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]
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".

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

In the "Affected Countries" portion of the info box, it lists Pakistan. Is there a reason why? Pakistan is not within the affected region. Perhaps it was meant to be Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan)? T. Sutherland (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "Pakistan" to "Bangladesh" in the list of "countries affected". That makes more sense, even without any info, since bangladesh is only about 1500 miles from chengdu, near where the earthquake happened. Prophet121 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophet121 (talk • contribs)
AP article says that it was felt as far away as Pakistan:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-china-earthquake,0,1326183.story 68.73.94.131 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Burma/Myanmar not affected or is it just unconfirmed at this point? It looks to be as close or closer to the epicenter than Thailand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.30 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Bhutan?

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

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

India?

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

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

remove "places affected"

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

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

7.8 or 7.9?

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

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

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

Some questions

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

  • Is it normal for earthquakes of this magnitude to be experienced over such a large area?
Yes, it is normal for an earthquake of this size to be felt over a very large area. The depth of the quakes origin in the crust and the type of rock in the area also have an influence. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this earthquake not forecast in advance (a Chinese earthquake in 1974, for example, was forecast and the only person that died was a man that died from a heart attack)?
There DID exist some animal disturb in China. e.g. Huge number of toad immigrate on roads, and some civil forcast on www but no one really noticed that. There a many civil freak forcasters every year in China. See this forcast post has over 145127 replies now. He said in 2008-5-9 said there will be M 6+ earthquake happen in 3 days (OMG OMG) --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquakes in general can not be forecast, experts can sometimes say that a large earthquake of a certain size may happen in an area at some point but can not say when. The successfully predicted 1975 event was preceded in the short term by a mix of unusual events including strange animal behaviour, abnormal air temperature and water levels that led to the evacuation of the city. Most large earthquakes may well be preceded by unusual events, but its not closely monitored enough to be sure of the need for an evacuation. See the article on earthquake prediction for more info. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see, he was using earthquake clouds, might this be useful to the article or is it undue weight? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How close is this quake to the geograhpical centre of the PRC (land only)?
You can measure this on Google Earth using USGS's KML file http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/shakemap/global/shake/2008ryan/download/2008ryan.kml --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Verbatim Quotes

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

I disagree. If it's public domain note that in a footnote but there is no need to waste energy rewriting perfectly good text if there is no legal reason to do so. Wikipedia has a long tradition of incorporating PD sources, quote-free (see Wikipedia:Public domain resources). Mangostar (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. That's called plagiarism, and Wikipedia definitely does not endorse that. It's also laziness. The quotes must remain until and when someone wishes to draft something more original. Tmangray (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News blocked in China?

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

Hi. It actually means that the rumours relating to an earthquake prediction were blocked, not the actual news itself, and definately not the CCTV station that was blocked. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for clearing it up. :-) 68.94.114.250 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out http://news.hexun.com/2008-05-13/105916960.html. That page cites the rumor report from The Beijing News, a Beijing based newspaper. Helloterran (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

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

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

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

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


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

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

reaction is a Press Release:

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

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

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

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

Dumping ref

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

Dam very close to epicenter

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Sichuan_earthquake&oldid=212087472"