Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:2008 Sichuan earthquake

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

Chinese Taipei

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

It should be ROC, but Taiwan is more correct than Chinese Taipei, which is only for use in intl organizations of which the ROC (and PRC, natch) is a member. English Wikipedia does not qualify. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Using Taiwan may be misleading, because it should be "countries and regions affected" if you intend to put taiwan into some equal position with countries like Thai, Burma and China.Helloterran (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The "ROC" is a country, whether or not you recognize it, and "Taiwan" is the common English term for the ROC. If you really don't think it is a country, then why are you even bothering to list it as Chinese Taipei, which as stated above is only used in intl organization of which it (and the PRC) are members? That does not apply here. This is no place for politics. This is an encyclopedia. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use NPOV terms like mainland and Taiwan instead of political terms?--Skyfiler (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan?

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

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

India?

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

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

remove "places affected"

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

I add some source which release from Xinhua press, maybe there will be some other source will be release from western tomorrow.I think it should be hold--Prinz.W (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is to stay, then the 'aftershocks were felt approximately x minutes after' bit needs to be changed as it is depicting the wrong thing, as the aftershocks so far wouldn't have been big enough to be felt over as large an area as the main quake. An aftershock is of course a small earthquake that occurs in the same region as an earlier larger quake, whereas here it is using the term to represent how far the shaking of the main quake was felt, which would not be correct. RapidR (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats another good point that I didn't even notice. Again, solid sources will be required to back up the statement that would otherwise provide misleading information. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

7.8 or 7.9?

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

The USGS is probably the best source to use here. I have no doubt that the news agencies will eventually update their magnitudes but they are down the line from the USGS. I can't find the official pages for the Chinese Seismology Bureaus, but if they listed a different number, then I'd consider it. But the USGS is definitely the best source in this situation. Calculating a moment magnitude is not as simple as a simple Richter scale measurement. Plus, in the Xinghua news releases that I've seen, it still refers to it as a "Richter scale" measurement when they're clearly reporting the moment magnitude which casts a huge doubt on their accuracy on this matter. Sasquatch t|c 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the offical website of Chinese Seismology Bureaus [1] "2008-05-12 14:28:04.1 30.95 103.40 33 Ms7.8 四川汶川县 " This webpage is the auto-release seismology information page ,therefore the page only conserve in 7days (= =)--Prinz.W (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Some questions

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

Is it normal for earthquakes of this magnitude to be experienced over such a large area?

Yes, it is normal for an earthquake of this size to be felt over a very large area. The depth of the quakes origin in the crust and the type of rock in the area also have an influence. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was this earthquake not forecast in advance (a Chinese earthquake in 1974, for example, was forecast and the only person that died was a man that died from a heart attack)?

There DID exist some animal disturb in China. e.g. Huge number of toad immigrate on roads, and some civil forcast on www but no one really noticed that. There a many civil freak forcasters every year in China. See this forcast post has over 145127 replies now. He said in 2008-5-9 said there will be M 6+ earthquake happen in 3 days (OMG OMG) --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes in general can not be forecast, experts can sometimes say that a large earthquake of a certain size may happen in an area at some point but can not say when. The successfully predicted 1975 event was preceded in the short term by a mix of unusual events including strange animal behaviour, abnormal air temperature and water levels that led to the evacuation of the city. Most large earthquakes may well be preceded by unusual events, but its not closely monitored enough to be sure of the need for an evacuation. See the article on earthquake prediction for more info. RapidR (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see, he was using earthquake clouds, might this be useful to the article or is it undue weight? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How close is this quake to the geograhpical centre of the PRC (land only)?

You can measure this on Google Earth using USGS's KML file http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/shakemap/global/shake/2008ryan/download/2008ryan.kml --Electronixtar (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Verbatim Quotes

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

I disagree. If it's public domain note that in a footnote but there is no need to waste energy rewriting perfectly good text if there is no legal reason to do so. Wikipedia has a long tradition of incorporating PD sources, quote-free (see Wikipedia:Public domain resources). Mangostar (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. That's called plagiarism, and Wikipedia definitely does not endorse that. It's also laziness. The quotes must remain until and when someone wishes to draft something more original. Tmangray (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Wikipedia has long done this and many of its articles are based on the 1911 Britannica, which is appropriately attributed in relevant footnotes. Would you suggest we retake public domain images from US agencies as well? The whole point of the public domain is that it can be freely reused without modification. Take this to the village pump if you doubt wikipedia policy on this point. Mangostar (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

News blocked in China?

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

Hi. It actually means that the rumours relating to an earthquake prediction were blocked, not the actual news itself, and definately not the CCTV station that was blocked. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clearing it up. :-) 68.94.114.250 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://news.hexun.com/2008-05-13/105916960.html. That page cites the rumor report from The Beijing News, a Beijing based newspaper. Helloterran (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

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

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

check this url: http://news.sina.com.cn/z/photo/06/08earthquake/index.shtml --LiDaobing (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to wiki's copyright policy we can hardly expect any image from near the epicenter.Helloterran (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

reaction is a Press Release:

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

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

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

That's a good question. Princeton's WordNet defines a nation as "A politically organized body of people under a single government" on the first entry. If you want to go by English definition, it may be interpreted either as appropriate or inappropriate, depending on bias. If you want to go by the Peoples Republic of China definition, then it may be inappropriate. The answer is ambiguous depending on which disposition is selected.

I would also like to highlight the fact that this earthquake was not limited to China. It affected (albeit minor) a number of sovereign nations, including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam. — C M B J 08:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "International" may not be the right term, Hong Kong SAR is administratively independent, but it is politically belongs to PRC. May we change the term into "Reaction from outside bodies"? GunRock (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Global reaction"? — C M B J 09:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Global reaction" is a good choice, it may further alleviate the endless argument of Taiwan vs ROC vs PRC vs China. If nobody oppose within an hour, I will change the term. GunRock (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. It should allow for thorough elaboration whilst maintaining a level of neutrality for all said parties. — C M B J 09:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Hong Kong is a part of the PRC. It says so in Hong Kong's constitution (the Basic Law): Chapter 1, Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." If the government of Jiangsu Province said it was concerned about the earthquake, would that be a "global reaction"? --Joowwww (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas is a part of the United States. If Texas sent aid to Washington D.C., it could be considered by logic to be a global reaction. Global does not necessarily imply domestic or foreign. — C M B J 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it would be described as "global", more "national", and foreign countries as "international". The term "global" connotes "worldwide" and therefore, "international". See Hurricane Katrina, no US states are listed under "international", however they are listed under "government response", therefore, "national". --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely it is, but "global reaction" can have the translation in Chinese which literally means "Reaction from all around", so of course you can list anybody from Lisbon to Jiangsu into it, further, it is convention and officially permitted to say that Hong Kong a "境外" (literally "outside") place. I think list Hong Kong in the "Global reaction" is an acceptable way and it can further accomodate other outside bodies such as Taiwan, Macau and other NGOs to resident in without drastic debate, and it is a now a official way to avoid conflict of both PRC and ROC government by "模糊化" (literrally "blurring") policy. GunRock (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Chinese Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia, and the English meaning of the word "global" means "international" when dealing with response to natural disasters. --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "Reaction outside mainland China" Readin (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

While I think "global" is neutral enough, I went ahead and changed it to "Reaction outside mainland China" because it is widely regarded as NPOV. The only real problem with it is awkwardness. Readin (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "Responses from other nations"? Secretliker (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Misses the point of the original debate viz. Hong Kong is/is not "global". 74.94.101.116 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Not every. GunRock (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumping ref

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

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

Dam very close to epicenter

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

That is Dujiang Yan, which was build some 2,000 years ago. Some ancient temples around it were damaged, but the dam itself is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanyelele (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if you take a glance at the google earth image, you can tell the dam is a modern dam. It is actually the 紫坪铺 (Zi Pingpu) reservoir. The dam have no major problem right now, but the reservoir may or may not course trouble later according to some Chinese media. GunRock (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is the dam. According to this report, severe cracks have been found and the plant is not operational anymore. And according to a friend of mine another dam "named Tulong Dam is very close to collapse, which might give pressure to downstream dams." Maybe some native Chinese speakers can research this? Ansiwen (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Significance

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

Japan predicted this EQ?

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

You can't predict earthquakes --Joowwww (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can... "I predict that an earthquake will occur in California next Friday at 5:23 PM"... ok, my prediction may or may not turn out to be accurate, but I can make the prediction. :>) (and if it does turn out to be accurate, boy will I be able to cash in on the psychic circuit). Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To be technically precise, you can predict earthquakes. I can predict that some very small-scale earthquake will take place in Japan in the next couple years (or maybe just months). I think this prediction has quite a good chance of turning out to be true. -- Taku (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But china's propaganda says they forecast an earthquake in 1970s, and china's people say a lot that their earthquake bureau derelict their duty before this disaster, because there were a lot of evidences show there may be an earthquake but the bureau take no attention. Pithree (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you show the evidence and lets see if it will help us improve the article, otherwise let me remind you that this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

article predicted the earthquake

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

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

It's this one. (Alternative website with longer English abstract) --Voidvector (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, that one is about 2003 or 2004 (2002 + "one or two years in the future") Yaan (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Longmenshan Thrust Zone

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

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

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

What is it that you added? Can you provide the diff? (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

it is once ,another time maybe not success to edit, the diff is here [2]--Prinz.W (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First, you should post the change that removed the change, so we don't have to toggle through a hundred changes. Second, it may be that someone reverted it because there are about nine serious English errors in the sentence. This article is pretty much in Chinglish, and your edits aren't helping. Please be more careful. Yunfeng (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we definitely shouldn't. The news to clarify dam situation was put to the highlighting position even on major Chinese news agencies. GunRock (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of English in this article

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

I recommend you to correct those mistakes instead of grumbling here ,lol. It's possibility a problem that the English level of some editors who from China or non-English speaker, like myself,is developing. Wikipeida is a mass collaboration project, i believe everyone have right to edit if they donot break the law--Prinz.W (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you stop introducing additional errors into the article so I'll have less work to do when the time comes to cleanup. You should stick to editing Chinese Wikipedia. Yunfeng (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah. The man is right, Wiki is a group effort. And we all (supposedly) help each other. If the standard of English is not great, allow those who have a good command of the langugae to improve the existing text, but do not dismiss people from helping by some act of snobbery, which is how, with respect, it sounds to me doktorb _words^deeds 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) I disagree. We are seeing edits to the article and comments on the talk page that are so mangled as to be almost meaningless. Someone just put a quote (of questionable relevance) from Wen Jiabao into the article in Chinese. Honestly, if you are that much more comfortable writing in Chinese, then you should stick to Chinese Wikipedia and restrict your contributions here to posting helpful links etc on the talk page. Otherwise this article risks becoming (more of) an unintelligible mess. Yunfeng (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is English Wikipedia, not English-as-a-Second-Language Wikipedia. As a non-native Chinese speaker, I would never consider editing Chinese Wikipedia or demand that they conform to English language conventions; I don't think that it is snobbery to ask Chinese speakers to treat English Wikipedia with the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.94.131 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I think that you should stop complaining and help out. I'm always fixing up problems (especially ref tags) made by new users, and never stop to complain. Some minor grammar and punctuation location problems from Chinese speakers (like me, even though I'm fluent in both languages) is not a major problem. --haha169 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All editors are officially and irrevocably encouraged to edit any article, so long as it is constructive. (WP:OWN and WP:AGF) These Chinese editors allow for us to have an improved scope and coverage of the article, and any English imperfections may simply be corrected by native speakers. — C M B J 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

another 18,000 trapped

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third paragraph into the article.

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

BBC Video

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

Another pic?

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

Rescue efforts

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

USGS ogg sound file

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

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

Mortality rate

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

Other Entities?

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

I think there are Chinese Government Officials here, and they dislike having Taiwan along with other "independent" nations. We're being safe and trying to avoid another battleground for Tawain/Chinese politics.--haha169 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection to "places". I didn't notice that.Helloterran (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But I'd like to remind you that this is still potentially misleading, I recommend using China mainland and Taiwan, if they must be put into the same part.Helloterran (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to remind you that in the English speaking world, there is nothing misleading about saying "China" for the PRC and "Taiwan" for the ROC. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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