![]() | 1976 Tangshan earthquake received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Perhaps my preferences aren't set correctly, but I see no map with any points labeled (not "C", as indicated in the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of "The Earthquake" section, nor "A" or "B" either, as noted in the infobox, as well as in later sections), other than in the infobox, where only the epicenter is marked. - Rusty Lugnuts ( talk) 17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to a tip from RobinLeicester I can get something that looks like broken OSM maps. @ Rusty Lugnuts: does clicking on ' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tangshan_earthquake#Damage' show the same problem you saw before? What I see from that link is the basemap (without the overlaid annotations) at the upper-right, and a blank box (presumably where the overlay data is/isn't) a little lower on the left. Is that what you see? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@
MarkH21: Just letting you know I am about to do some extended editing. I would like to point out that your
(13 Feb.), replacing "complete lack of warning
" with "failure to predict
" (without explanation) evinces an identity that does not apply here. For sure, the concepts are closely coupled, and often the difference is immaterial. But as explained (perhaps inadequately?) in the "Question of prediction" section: whether there was, or was not, a prediction is questionable. What is not questionable is that there was no public warning, and therefore, in contrast to Haicheng, no preparation. Also, in several cases where you have removed text I would suggest that templating (such as with {{
cn}} or {{
or}}) would be more appropriate. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
So is your objection to "Tangshan was not so fortunate" — that it is unnecessary — because this is clearly and obviously true? I think that is presuming upon "Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
the reader's knowledge and perspective". Alternately, perhaps you are thinking this is Wikipedia taking a view? Sorry, no, that is the source (Kerr, 1979), which says: "
The city of Tangshan had not been so fortunate....". (If the text was any closer quotation marks would be needed.) And in this source and others there is an explicit contrast with Haicheng, and mention of specific points (such as lack of precursors, and time of day) where Haicheng was fortunate, and Tangshan was not. As to being subjective — I presume you mean in the sense of opinions arising from one's own personal feelings, distinguished from opinions based on sensible, external reality, without distortion from personal feeling — well, the objective explicit reality is: the factors in why Tangshan got crushed a lot worse than Haicheng all seem to be fortuitous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So an article should not read "___ was fortunate". It would be acceptable with respect to this position that an article may something like "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate in his/her analysis of ___". However, in this (and many other) cases such a statement is unimportant and doe not need to be included in an article.Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
well-established position in MOS". Indeed, I have yet to find any discussion of that in the archives. As to rigid avoidance of "fortunately", the only discussion of this I have found in the MOS archives is here, where the statement at the top of the MOS was reiterated: "
The advice in this guideline ... should not be applied rigidly." [Emphasis in the original.] There was also discussion of why "words to avoid" was changed to "words to watch", with mention of some editors taking this to mean "remove on sight".
really a subjective opinion". It refers to things or events "happening by accident or chance". And, to take time of day as an example, there is no reason known (or even suspected) why the Tangshan earthquake happened at 4 AM and not (say) 4 PM; that was purely and objectively by chance, there is no subjectivity to it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article." Also citing the MOS ("
Wikipedia should not take a view ..."), for: "
So an article should not read[your italics]
"___ was fortunate"." That sure sounds like "forbidden". But perhaps today we agree that "fortunate" is not forbidden.
It's more than just often... it's the explicit definition in most definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Cambridge Dictionary)! Similarly for "fortuitous" which has "fortunate" and "lucky" strongly associated and included in many definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary) Even if that is not the intended usage here, it does have that connotation for many readers. Yes, it's not really so bad if we use "fortunate" here but the contrast can easily be drawn without using words carrying an implicit "goodness". What I wrote above works as a bare example:
2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 Ms earthquake at Haicheng. 242,419 people died at the similarly-sized earthquake at Tangshan. The (lack of) precursors and time of day contributed to the low death toll at Haicheng and the high death toll at Tangshan. One doesn't need to state that Kerr thinks that Tangshan was not as fortunate as Haicheng.
The inclusion of the sentence "Tangshan was not so fortunate." is unnecessary. — MarkH21 ( talk) 03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@ MarkH21: At one point I found what appeared to be the official (CEA) death toll ( here) but it's gone away. (Yeah, I should have archived it. Dang.) Given your command of Chinese, could you search for a replacement? Or even (a long shot) do you suppose we could ask them to restore that page? Incidentally, the missing page had this notation: "International Networking Unit Record No. 京ICP备06029777". But that seems to be worthless. Googling on that last part plus "唐山" turns up some hits, but they're all 404. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson:I made a few edits regarding the death toll that you may want to review. I basically changed the infobox entry to reflect the official figure (at least what was more recently reported by official media), made two subsections since two thirds of the section is about reports immediately following the earthquake and one third is about the later government-reported figures, removed two minor unattributed claims, and replaced boldfaced figures with emphasis (per MOS:NOBOLD). — MarkH21 ( talk) 22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
family (CS2 style). Where a {cite} template is used (sometimes there is no CS1 equivalent) the |mode=cs2
parameter should be included. Also, the cite/citation templates create full citations, which should be in the Sources section; the in-line citation should be a short-cite. News agencies are a little tricky; I suggest something like {{
Harvnb|Xinhua|2019}}
for the short-cite, and adding |ref=CITEREFXinhua2019
("name" and year concatenated) to the cite template. If that doesn't work: don't worry about it, I can make it work.I am going to demure on removing the bolding. I agree we generally avoid that. But with a bunch of different figures (and adamantly not wanting to convert that section into a table) I think the different figures should be highlighted in some way, but more than italiciation. They are, after all, essentially index terms for the content of that section, and (I feel) should be readily findable without having to sequentially search the text. As to alternatives: Underlining? I rather don't like it (makes the numbers a little less clear), but could accept it. Colored text? Not really a good idea. Background coloring? So so, has to be done carefully, but I am kind of liking it. How about a slightly larger font? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
A bit uneasy about fraktur (even if properly rendered) as I haven't seen any use of it outside of mathematics. My understanding is that guillemets are only used in some languages outside of English and for translations from other languages to English, so I don't feel particularly good about that either. Larger also seems a bit off... I'll make a post at the typographical Wikiprojects to ask for attention or otherwise make an RfC. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against adding bolding or emphasis of the reported death figures.
Should reported death figures for a historical event use boldface, emphasis, or any other type of typographic or semantic emphasis? The editors and are unsure of the options and standards. One editor is against the use of boldface per
MOS:NOBOLD and advocates for the use of italics or {{
em}}, while the other editor would like a typographic way to highlight the death figures as indices. See
the above section for past discussion and additional proposed alternatives. 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
just numbers" in "
a simple range" does the readers a disservice in blunting their understanding of the matter. Some of these numbers have been very widely repeated (even in a peer-reviewed journal), but for all that they are entirely meaningless without some explanation of where and how they came about. They all have some basis, and though we are not fortunate enough to know all of that I think we should explain what we can. And as I said above, I think it is quite likely that some readers will arrive here wanting to know not what the range of estimates was, but about a particular number. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds". (Especially as most of the world's population wasn't even alive then.) The much more likely scenario is someone is comparing "the world's deadliest natural disasters" (or some suchy), or comes here straight from List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes, where the "242,769–655,000" range given for Tangshan ranks it deadlier than three other earthquakes of 273,400, 250,000, and 260,000 deaths, and wants to know something about the validity of the different numbers.
@
J. Johnson: Regarding
this, even if Housner writes ceased to exist
doesn't mean that we should use it here. It's a dramatic flourish suitable for a book but not for Wikipedia articles, particularly since it's not precisely correct. If eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable
, then the city did not literally cease to exist. It's just literary flair. I'm not sure why you prefer that to something capturing the same spirit like nearly completely destroyed
that is accurate and not just puff.
Also regarding the revert and what I think was confusion over
my edit summary (i.e. about the cns?), the while true, doesn’t really need to be said especially if unattributed
part of my edit summary refers to me reverting
this edit and still seems dramatic and somewhat imprecise
refers to the ceased to exist
change. —
MarkH21
talk
03:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services. "
[N]early completely destroyed" is inaccurate (how much is "nearly completely"?), not what the source says, and does not "capture the same spirit" as the explicit "
ceased to exist" as a fuctioning entity. Yes, it is dramatic, but so was the reality, and I know of no rule or guideline that prohibits use of an accurate, sourced statement. You imply that it is "puff", but I don't see that. The city was entirely rebuilt, to a new plan, so it seems quite accurate to say that Tangshan as it was no longer exists.
one of the most damaging [EQs] in modern history" is a fair rendering of Housner's "
greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world", and arguably even more accurate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
even ifhere means that despite the source having the words
ceased to exist, I don't think that the article should state that in WP voice in the lead.My point is simply that
ceased to existis a literary dramatic flourish that, while an interesting hook, can be misconstrued and replaced by more standard neutral wording (neutral in the sense of emotional & reporting tone, not in the sense of NPOV). The city still existed - sure not in its former form or as a functional city - but it continued to exist in a destroyed state with several hundreds of thousands of surviving inhabitants, and later continued to exist as a rebuilt city. The words
ceased to exist(without any other context, e.g. without the
as a functioning entitythat you provide) can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is what I mean when I say that those words, without any additional context, are inaccurate and dramatic. Can you see what I mean here? I'm not saying that the phrasing is prohibited by guideline or policy, but that the wording can be improved through some modification.Perhaps some other alternative to
nearly completely destroyedwould be better, but even removing the entire sentence would be fine. Perhaps even just combining the two adjacent sentences to form:
In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable...
ceased to exist.
This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history.when the very next sentence says that
the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.It's unnecessary and redundant since the second sentence already prescribes it as one of the most damaging in recorded history. — MarkH21 talk 02:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
ceased to exist" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that, where it is readily verifiable that he did, in fact write that. Presuming that you had merely not read the source seemed the more charitable explanation for what you wrote. Perhaps you don't understand that "if" carries a strong sense of "possibly not true"? Perhaps "despite", meaning notwithstanding, unaffected, or regardless, better fits what you meant to say?
more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the worldfrom Housner-He. If you're neutral on whether the statement stays, then I take it that you won't oppose its removal unless you want to be POINTY.
According to Housner-He, ... ceased to existor modify the statement to something else without in-text attribution to them. Again, I am not suggesting that we have to use
nearly completely destroyed. See the proposed text in my previous comment.
ceased to existcan have different implications, which I discussed in my last comment? One can describe the physical devastation and tragic loss of life without using cheap idioms that lacks precision, even if that's how one book introduces the topic
If", again? That is a hypothetical, as I have not "
refuse[d] to consider any proposals or alternatives". And I have offered an alternative, to which you have not responded.
used to emphasize something unexpected or surprising", which, coupled with your "if", suggested to me that you were surprised or doubtful of what Housner said. But you are being unnecessarily contentious here: you seem to have missed my key qualification that your "even if" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that. Whether you or I have the better grasp of a fine point of English usage is quite immaterial here, as I was attempting to explain why I thought you might not have read the source. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.
cheap idiom". Also, WP:IDIOM says nothing about "cheap"; it says that "
Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Which I believe favors "ceased to exist".
as a functioning entity, which I also think is worse than other alternatives. Would you care to consider the proposed removal of the text in the blockquote that begins
In minutes, eighty-five percent...? I don't see any argument for why
ceased to existshould be in the lead, besides Housner-He having written it. I don't see it adding any value here, and only serving to be imprecise and idiomatic language.
even if(distinct from
even+
if) as:
despite the possibility that; no matter whetherand
despite the fact that; even though. There's no implication whatsoever that there is any surprise or doubt. That's just a fact of English. It's fine if you misunderstand the wording, but don't be so quick to accuse editors of not reading sources.
bizarrewas your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic (
Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring?). That, plus your quip
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop.
Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressionsas you point out.
Ceased to existis an idiom; it's a form of "cease to be" which is in the Wiktionary list of English idioms (linked in WP:IDIOM) and in the Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. But even disregarding its status as an idiom, I have discussed how it is imprecise. Especially when taken as a
direct, literal expressions, it is imprecise because Tangshan did not literally stop existing on 28 July 1976. Do you not accept that there are other connotations of the phrase (no longer being any entity, being wiped out, etc.)? I don't see that you've acknowledged that yet.
ceased to existis imprecise and has other interpretations that are inappropriate here is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple logical argument for modifying the statement. You might not think that any alternative expresses what happens more precisely and clearly while I do, sure. Just because you disagree with the argument doesn't mean that my position is somehow entirely opinion-based and not borne from any application of WP writing guidelines and standards. — MarkH21 talk 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate.
The ONLY talk page I have found where "ceased to exist" is objected to as idiom is this one.are non-arguments and don’t address the issue here.
ceased to existbesides it being written in a source. If you refuse to debate the actual merits and precision of the wording then fine, I’ll open an RfC. — MarkH21 talk 01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You essentially rejected your own proposal" as I was with your earlier "
shot down your own proposal" (@ 03:15). (The shooting down of that proposal would be your continuation of that sentence: "
worse than other alternatives.") I don't see where I have "shot down" that proposal ("essentially" or otherwise), so please point to the specific text where you got that impression.
ceased to exist" with "
nearly completely destroyed". I responded to that in my following comments (at 22:23 28 Feb. and 00:32 1 March). QED: your statement of non-acknowledgement is FALSE. (I take response to be a form of acknowledegment, but perhaps you dispute that.)
In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan..., not the initial
nearly completely destroyedone. You still seemed to have missed that.
ducking outor anything else fitting that rhetoric. — MarkH21 talk 23:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me? You literally said Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you.
We were clearly not coming to an agreement so I opened the RfC. Re shot down
, I interpreted your But would there then be a problem with that not being exactly what he said?
that immediately followed as a dismissal of the preceding sentence. Okay, my interpretation of that was wrong based on your support for that option in the RfC below. I think we're done here. —
MarkH21
talk
00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
would there then be a problem ...?" (I was contemplating whether, if you and I agreed on that change, it might be challenged by other editors.)
we're done here", do you mean that you have withdrawn your objection to "ceased to exist"? Or perhaps you accept the qualification? Or something else? Is the RfC still needed? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
we're done heremeans there aren’t any outstanding issues, which are not part of the RfC below, that need to be addressed further in this section; i.e. we can just focus on the RfC. Although, I think our thoughts & positions are quite clear; perhaps waiting for more responses from the editors there / more editors and letting the RfC run its course would be most productive. — MarkH21 talk 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
(Splitting this issue from the above discussion)
If damaging
is taken in its most general sense (including human cost, physical damage, financial cost) then it is redundant with the sentence that immediately follows it (...making this the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.
). Number of deaths is a easily quantifiable and common way of describing the destructiveness of an earthquake (alongside magnitude, intensity scales, and financial cost).
If damaging
is taken to solely mean physical/structural damage:
damagingearthquakes, it says that it was
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world- this does not refer to physical damage alone.
one of the most(and regarded by whom?).
Then the claim is unreferenced. If this is purely about physical damage separate from the deadliness, then any claims about being a superlative for physical damage should be clearly sourced whether it is a specific claim (e.g. in terms of intensity scales or buildings destroyed) or a more general statement about physical damage. — MarkH21 talk 06:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world") is that it "
does not refer to physical damage alone." However, on that basis Housner's remark would be untrue, as the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake is generally considered the deadliest "in the history of the world." In fact it is quite clear from the context that Dr. Housner – don't forget that he was an engineer – was applying "disaster" to the failure of structures and their functioning. E.g., in the preceeding sentence he says:
An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes.
most damagingthat is the focus of this subsection, or about the RfC / original section’s discussion of the
ceased to exist matter?
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world. — MarkH21 talk 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Since you are so obtusely disputatious I submit a list of the 23 chapter headings from the four volumes of "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976". Note that ALL of these chapters are about engineering, buildings, structures, or geological/seismological aspects of the quake that are pertinent to engineering. I challenge you to find where this report discusses the overall death toll, other than incidentally.
Chapters in "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976"
|
---|
At https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/. Volume I: CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC ACTIVITY AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 2: ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY CHAPTER 3: EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY CHAPTER 4: STRONG EARTHQUAKE MOTION OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER 5: SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Volume II: CHAPTER 1: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT CHINESE BUILDINGS CHAPTER 3: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT Volumd III: CHAPTER 1: RAILWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 2: HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 3: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING CHAPTER 4: ENGINEERING FOR WATER TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 6: EARTHQUAKE RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TANGSHAN Volume IV: CHAPTER 1: GENERAL VIEWS OF DAMAGE IN MEIZOSEISMAL AREA CHAPTER 2: GROUND FAILURE CHAPTER 3: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: ANCIENT BUILDINGS CHAPTER 5: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 6: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES CHAPTER 7: RAILWAY AND HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 8: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING OF WATER TRANSPORT |
The Overview volume mentions fatalities in three places, and almost incidentally. What is totally unsupported is your claim that Housner-He are not "referring solely to physical/structural damage
".
Also: as I have explained previously (did you read it?) if "greatest disaster" is interpreted as equivalent to "greatest number of deaths" than Housner's statement is incorrect. As that is quite unlikely, I suggest that your interpretation is incorrect. As you have not responded to my request (at 21:25 1 Mar.) for "some source that says otherwise", I think we can presume that you are unable to support that interpretation.
By the way,
WP:CHALLENGE also says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
" Particularly irksome about your deletion is that there was no lack of a reliable source, nor even a lack of a citation (it was on the following sentence), but only that that sentence was missing its citation. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Obtusely disputatiousis language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me.Let's follow the logic here. I removed the because the newly inserted sentence because it was not clearly or directly referenced. You claim that the sentence
This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history
An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes. The Tangshan disaster met all these requirements and the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world.
one of the most damaging in modern historyand does not explicitly say that it was some superlative with regards to physical damage. It says that such an earthquake disaster requires substantial physical damage from a large enough earthquake, close proximity, and poor building structures. Anything else that may be inferred from the table of contents, the contents of the rest of the book, the fact that the authors are engineers, the fact that it was not the single deadliest earthquake whereas they use the words
greatest, etc. would indirectly support that Housner-He may mean physical damage when they say
the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world.These arguments do not do anything to provide a source that
directly supports the contributiona la WP:CHALLENGE (italics mine).Yes, WP:CHALLENGE acknowledges that some editors may object, and to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. That does not that it should be considered inappropriate to remove unreferenced material without taking the interim step.You said before that
I am rather neutral on whether it stays.If that's the case, then this is all unnecessary and an unproductive use of both your time and my time. — MarkH21 talk 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
directly supports" as requiring exact wording. I reject that, as W:V has no such requirement, and on showing that an exact quote (as proposed) would be counter-factual. Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse, given that 23 chapters of a four-volume engineering report firmly establish the engineering context of structure, infrastructure, etc., without any mention of the total death toll. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
directly supportsrequires exact wording. However, the passage does not directly say anything about any kind of superlative with respect to physical damage. I didn't say that that the book being about engineering is inferred, but that extrapolating that
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the worldspecifically refers to physical damage from the fact that the rest of the book is about engineering is an inferral. That's what's indirect. — MarkH21 talk 23:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution(changed bolding is mine). It requires direct support from the reference.Again, I didn't say that Housner-He being about physical damage is an inference. That the specific phrase
greatest earthquake disasterin the prologue refers to physical damage is an inference. It is being inferred from the rest of the book being about physical damage.Okay, it's an EERL report; I was using the pdf version and I assumed that there was a book version. But surmising whether or not other editors have read the source is an ad hominem, and a speculative one at that. — MarkH21 talk 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the lead article have the sentence In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.
? Please decide on one of the three following proposals:
In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
(with or without theIn minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitantssub-clause)
In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist as a functioning entity. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC); converted talk-quotes to block-quotes and completed the quoted sentences in the proposals after unusable
00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
ceased to existwithout any other context can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is unnecessarily imprecise writing (besides being potentially idiomatic per Wiktionary list of English idioms and Farlex Dictionary of idioms), when the physical destruction is quantified in the subsequent sentence and human life loss is quantified later in the same paragraph.While the phrase is literally taken from the dramatic opening in the prologue to one of the sources ( Housner-He), the phrase
ceased to existis imprecise here due to its other connotations. It's unnecessary dramatic writing made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences per WP:IDIOM and general MOS guidelines for precision. Just because a source says it doesn't make it automatically worthy of inclusion.The third option is slightly better than the first but still suboptimal,
functioning entityreally is. The
ceased to existsentence doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences. — MarkH21 talk 07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC); fixed typo 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
an eminent authority on earthquake engineeringand just leave the name as a blue link). — MarkH21 talk 00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
worse than other alternatives." To the contrary, I argue that "nearly completely destroyed" is quite imprecise, and even something like "85% destroyed" is imprecise in the sense that it does not convey the essence of the matter: Tangshan ceased to function as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services. This is not "
made redundant" by the following sentences, as they do not state the consequence of all the destruction.
nearly completely destroyedis not in any of the proposed texts here.Also if your objection is that the essence of the matter is that Tangshan
was not able to provide any municipal services, notice that the sentence already says
Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, ...(bolding mine). Insert
municipalthere if you’d like.Also regarding your claim
but for reasons he has not explained he considers that "worse than other alternatives.", I gave reasons in the last paragraph of my comment above. — MarkH21 talk 01:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
[N]early completely destroyed" is what you initially suggested instead of "ceased to exist".
last paragraph" above (at 07:25, right?) are
suboptimal, [...] still somewhat imprecise by what a "functioning entity" really is", and
doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences." (What you described in your preceeding paragraph as "
made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences".)
Eighty-five percent of the buildings ...." Such quantification of the scale of destruction is a very crude measure that only roughly correlates with the effects, and, just as I have already said:
does not convey the essence of the matter: Tangshan ceased to function as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services.
nearly completely destroyedafter the second comment or so in the previous discussion and didn’t mention it here at the RfC. It’s moot.
failed to provide any municipal servicessubstantially different from the
all municipal services failed? No.
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("
Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("
Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling?
somewhat imprecise" (huh?) and "
doesn't add much value". On the contrary, I have argued that is a precise, succinct statement of the most significant aspect of the situation immediately following the quake. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a
oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do!It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful.The comment
Can you see what I mean here?(not bolded as quoted) was part of me actually asking you if you agree to some part of what I wrote. It's quite a stretch to interpret that as me claiming that you are blind or claiming anything about you.My point is and has been that the discussion of
nearly completely destroyedis moot because it is not part of any of the proposals in this RfC. And yes, it's still imprecise (a
functioning entitydoes not clearly connect to the point about municipal services) and we can also see that I'm not the only one who finds
ceased to exist as a functioning entityimprecise and awkward. The comment
doesn't add much valuemeans that the phrase
ceased to existdoesn't provide any more information than is given in the rest of the lead, particularly the subsequent two sentences.Again, your most significant aspect is already in all three proposed sentences in the bolded three words of
Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, ...— MarkH21 talk 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
hyperbolic language not well-suited to WP's encyclopedic tone." In the first place, that specific term is used over seven thousand times' on the 'pedia, which shows widespread, strong acceptance. Second, WP:TONE says:
Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
ceased to exist,
ceased to exist as a functioning entity,
ceased to exist as a functioning cityall do not describe anything precise with respect to
there were (effectively) no services available locally to help. The very next sentence also says that explicitly in
all services failed. — MarkH21 talk 00:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The essence of the matter. My comment wasn’t a response to Sdkb’s point about hyperbolic language (with which I agree).If the essence is that there were no municipal services anymore, I think that the subsequent compound sentence that states that there were no municipal services communicates that essence. Its also fine to split that phrase off into a separate sentence, if its emphasis is so necessary. But there’s no real need to summarize
all municipal services failedvia
ceased to existif another lead sentence says
all municipal services failed.— MarkH21 talk 04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
should not be used in an encyclopedia." A recent search shows that 7,614 articles use "ceased to exist", and the 'only complaint about that term I have found is here. On that basis I say that the WP community has accepted "ceased to exist". 7,613 times. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Mark was perhaps too shy to mention it here, but I would not want anyone to miss the fun we're having at ANI. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
When whoever wrote that this earthquake's magnitude was remeasured to be 7.6 on the Chinese scale or whatever in the first paragraph, the cited source https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/1/Tangshan/Volume1_Chapter_1.pdf does not say that at all?? In fact I cannot find the value 7.6 anywhere in there??? Other sources are corroborating that it is 7.6, but this is a poorly done citation unless I'm blatantly missing something. 165.124.85.25 ( talk) 04:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 1976 Tangshan earthquake received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. show |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Perhaps my preferences aren't set correctly, but I see no map with any points labeled (not "C", as indicated in the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of "The Earthquake" section, nor "A" or "B" either, as noted in the infobox, as well as in later sections), other than in the infobox, where only the epicenter is marked. - Rusty Lugnuts ( talk) 17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to a tip from RobinLeicester I can get something that looks like broken OSM maps. @ Rusty Lugnuts: does clicking on ' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tangshan_earthquake#Damage' show the same problem you saw before? What I see from that link is the basemap (without the overlaid annotations) at the upper-right, and a blank box (presumably where the overlay data is/isn't) a little lower on the left. Is that what you see? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@
MarkH21: Just letting you know I am about to do some extended editing. I would like to point out that your
(13 Feb.), replacing "complete lack of warning
" with "failure to predict
" (without explanation) evinces an identity that does not apply here. For sure, the concepts are closely coupled, and often the difference is immaterial. But as explained (perhaps inadequately?) in the "Question of prediction" section: whether there was, or was not, a prediction is questionable. What is not questionable is that there was no public warning, and therefore, in contrast to Haicheng, no preparation. Also, in several cases where you have removed text I would suggest that templating (such as with {{
cn}} or {{
or}}) would be more appropriate. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
So is your objection to "Tangshan was not so fortunate" — that it is unnecessary — because this is clearly and obviously true? I think that is presuming upon "Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
the reader's knowledge and perspective". Alternately, perhaps you are thinking this is Wikipedia taking a view? Sorry, no, that is the source (Kerr, 1979), which says: "
The city of Tangshan had not been so fortunate....". (If the text was any closer quotation marks would be needed.) And in this source and others there is an explicit contrast with Haicheng, and mention of specific points (such as lack of precursors, and time of day) where Haicheng was fortunate, and Tangshan was not. As to being subjective — I presume you mean in the sense of opinions arising from one's own personal feelings, distinguished from opinions based on sensible, external reality, without distortion from personal feeling — well, the objective explicit reality is: the factors in why Tangshan got crushed a lot worse than Haicheng all seem to be fortuitous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So an article should not read "___ was fortunate". It would be acceptable with respect to this position that an article may something like "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate in his/her analysis of ___". However, in this (and many other) cases such a statement is unimportant and doe not need to be included in an article.Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
well-established position in MOS". Indeed, I have yet to find any discussion of that in the archives. As to rigid avoidance of "fortunately", the only discussion of this I have found in the MOS archives is here, where the statement at the top of the MOS was reiterated: "
The advice in this guideline ... should not be applied rigidly." [Emphasis in the original.] There was also discussion of why "words to avoid" was changed to "words to watch", with mention of some editors taking this to mean "remove on sight".
really a subjective opinion". It refers to things or events "happening by accident or chance". And, to take time of day as an example, there is no reason known (or even suspected) why the Tangshan earthquake happened at 4 AM and not (say) 4 PM; that was purely and objectively by chance, there is no subjectivity to it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article." Also citing the MOS ("
Wikipedia should not take a view ..."), for: "
So an article should not read[your italics]
"___ was fortunate"." That sure sounds like "forbidden". But perhaps today we agree that "fortunate" is not forbidden.
It's more than just often... it's the explicit definition in most definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Cambridge Dictionary)! Similarly for "fortuitous" which has "fortunate" and "lucky" strongly associated and included in many definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary) Even if that is not the intended usage here, it does have that connotation for many readers. Yes, it's not really so bad if we use "fortunate" here but the contrast can easily be drawn without using words carrying an implicit "goodness". What I wrote above works as a bare example:
2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 Ms earthquake at Haicheng. 242,419 people died at the similarly-sized earthquake at Tangshan. The (lack of) precursors and time of day contributed to the low death toll at Haicheng and the high death toll at Tangshan. One doesn't need to state that Kerr thinks that Tangshan was not as fortunate as Haicheng.
The inclusion of the sentence "Tangshan was not so fortunate." is unnecessary. — MarkH21 ( talk) 03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@ MarkH21: At one point I found what appeared to be the official (CEA) death toll ( here) but it's gone away. (Yeah, I should have archived it. Dang.) Given your command of Chinese, could you search for a replacement? Or even (a long shot) do you suppose we could ask them to restore that page? Incidentally, the missing page had this notation: "International Networking Unit Record No. 京ICP备06029777". But that seems to be worthless. Googling on that last part plus "唐山" turns up some hits, but they're all 404. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson:I made a few edits regarding the death toll that you may want to review. I basically changed the infobox entry to reflect the official figure (at least what was more recently reported by official media), made two subsections since two thirds of the section is about reports immediately following the earthquake and one third is about the later government-reported figures, removed two minor unattributed claims, and replaced boldfaced figures with emphasis (per MOS:NOBOLD). — MarkH21 ( talk) 22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
family (CS2 style). Where a {cite} template is used (sometimes there is no CS1 equivalent) the |mode=cs2
parameter should be included. Also, the cite/citation templates create full citations, which should be in the Sources section; the in-line citation should be a short-cite. News agencies are a little tricky; I suggest something like {{
Harvnb|Xinhua|2019}}
for the short-cite, and adding |ref=CITEREFXinhua2019
("name" and year concatenated) to the cite template. If that doesn't work: don't worry about it, I can make it work.I am going to demure on removing the bolding. I agree we generally avoid that. But with a bunch of different figures (and adamantly not wanting to convert that section into a table) I think the different figures should be highlighted in some way, but more than italiciation. They are, after all, essentially index terms for the content of that section, and (I feel) should be readily findable without having to sequentially search the text. As to alternatives: Underlining? I rather don't like it (makes the numbers a little less clear), but could accept it. Colored text? Not really a good idea. Background coloring? So so, has to be done carefully, but I am kind of liking it. How about a slightly larger font? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
A bit uneasy about fraktur (even if properly rendered) as I haven't seen any use of it outside of mathematics. My understanding is that guillemets are only used in some languages outside of English and for translations from other languages to English, so I don't feel particularly good about that either. Larger also seems a bit off... I'll make a post at the typographical Wikiprojects to ask for attention or otherwise make an RfC. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against adding bolding or emphasis of the reported death figures.
Should reported death figures for a historical event use boldface, emphasis, or any other type of typographic or semantic emphasis? The editors and are unsure of the options and standards. One editor is against the use of boldface per
MOS:NOBOLD and advocates for the use of italics or {{
em}}, while the other editor would like a typographic way to highlight the death figures as indices. See
the above section for past discussion and additional proposed alternatives. 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
just numbers" in "
a simple range" does the readers a disservice in blunting their understanding of the matter. Some of these numbers have been very widely repeated (even in a peer-reviewed journal), but for all that they are entirely meaningless without some explanation of where and how they came about. They all have some basis, and though we are not fortunate enough to know all of that I think we should explain what we can. And as I said above, I think it is quite likely that some readers will arrive here wanting to know not what the range of estimates was, but about a particular number. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds". (Especially as most of the world's population wasn't even alive then.) The much more likely scenario is someone is comparing "the world's deadliest natural disasters" (or some suchy), or comes here straight from List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes, where the "242,769–655,000" range given for Tangshan ranks it deadlier than three other earthquakes of 273,400, 250,000, and 260,000 deaths, and wants to know something about the validity of the different numbers.
@
J. Johnson: Regarding
this, even if Housner writes ceased to exist
doesn't mean that we should use it here. It's a dramatic flourish suitable for a book but not for Wikipedia articles, particularly since it's not precisely correct. If eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable
, then the city did not literally cease to exist. It's just literary flair. I'm not sure why you prefer that to something capturing the same spirit like nearly completely destroyed
that is accurate and not just puff.
Also regarding the revert and what I think was confusion over
my edit summary (i.e. about the cns?), the while true, doesn’t really need to be said especially if unattributed
part of my edit summary refers to me reverting
this edit and still seems dramatic and somewhat imprecise
refers to the ceased to exist
change. —
MarkH21
talk
03:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services. "
[N]early completely destroyed" is inaccurate (how much is "nearly completely"?), not what the source says, and does not "capture the same spirit" as the explicit "
ceased to exist" as a fuctioning entity. Yes, it is dramatic, but so was the reality, and I know of no rule or guideline that prohibits use of an accurate, sourced statement. You imply that it is "puff", but I don't see that. The city was entirely rebuilt, to a new plan, so it seems quite accurate to say that Tangshan as it was no longer exists.
one of the most damaging [EQs] in modern history" is a fair rendering of Housner's "
greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world", and arguably even more accurate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
even ifhere means that despite the source having the words
ceased to exist, I don't think that the article should state that in WP voice in the lead.My point is simply that
ceased to existis a literary dramatic flourish that, while an interesting hook, can be misconstrued and replaced by more standard neutral wording (neutral in the sense of emotional & reporting tone, not in the sense of NPOV). The city still existed - sure not in its former form or as a functional city - but it continued to exist in a destroyed state with several hundreds of thousands of surviving inhabitants, and later continued to exist as a rebuilt city. The words
ceased to exist(without any other context, e.g. without the
as a functioning entitythat you provide) can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is what I mean when I say that those words, without any additional context, are inaccurate and dramatic. Can you see what I mean here? I'm not saying that the phrasing is prohibited by guideline or policy, but that the wording can be improved through some modification.Perhaps some other alternative to
nearly completely destroyedwould be better, but even removing the entire sentence would be fine. Perhaps even just combining the two adjacent sentences to form:
In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable...
ceased to exist.
This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history.when the very next sentence says that
the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.It's unnecessary and redundant since the second sentence already prescribes it as one of the most damaging in recorded history. — MarkH21 talk 02:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
ceased to exist" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that, where it is readily verifiable that he did, in fact write that. Presuming that you had merely not read the source seemed the more charitable explanation for what you wrote. Perhaps you don't understand that "if" carries a strong sense of "possibly not true"? Perhaps "despite", meaning notwithstanding, unaffected, or regardless, better fits what you meant to say?
more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the worldfrom Housner-He. If you're neutral on whether the statement stays, then I take it that you won't oppose its removal unless you want to be POINTY.
According to Housner-He, ... ceased to existor modify the statement to something else without in-text attribution to them. Again, I am not suggesting that we have to use
nearly completely destroyed. See the proposed text in my previous comment.
ceased to existcan have different implications, which I discussed in my last comment? One can describe the physical devastation and tragic loss of life without using cheap idioms that lacks precision, even if that's how one book introduces the topic
If", again? That is a hypothetical, as I have not "
refuse[d] to consider any proposals or alternatives". And I have offered an alternative, to which you have not responded.
used to emphasize something unexpected or surprising", which, coupled with your "if", suggested to me that you were surprised or doubtful of what Housner said. But you are being unnecessarily contentious here: you seem to have missed my key qualification that your "even if" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that. Whether you or I have the better grasp of a fine point of English usage is quite immaterial here, as I was attempting to explain why I thought you might not have read the source. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.
cheap idiom". Also, WP:IDIOM says nothing about "cheap"; it says that "
Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Which I believe favors "ceased to exist".
as a functioning entity, which I also think is worse than other alternatives. Would you care to consider the proposed removal of the text in the blockquote that begins
In minutes, eighty-five percent...? I don't see any argument for why
ceased to existshould be in the lead, besides Housner-He having written it. I don't see it adding any value here, and only serving to be imprecise and idiomatic language.
even if(distinct from
even+
if) as:
despite the possibility that; no matter whetherand
despite the fact that; even though. There's no implication whatsoever that there is any surprise or doubt. That's just a fact of English. It's fine if you misunderstand the wording, but don't be so quick to accuse editors of not reading sources.
bizarrewas your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic (
Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring?). That, plus your quip
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop.
Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressionsas you point out.
Ceased to existis an idiom; it's a form of "cease to be" which is in the Wiktionary list of English idioms (linked in WP:IDIOM) and in the Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. But even disregarding its status as an idiom, I have discussed how it is imprecise. Especially when taken as a
direct, literal expressions, it is imprecise because Tangshan did not literally stop existing on 28 July 1976. Do you not accept that there are other connotations of the phrase (no longer being any entity, being wiped out, etc.)? I don't see that you've acknowledged that yet.
ceased to existis imprecise and has other interpretations that are inappropriate here is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple logical argument for modifying the statement. You might not think that any alternative expresses what happens more precisely and clearly while I do, sure. Just because you disagree with the argument doesn't mean that my position is somehow entirely opinion-based and not borne from any application of WP writing guidelines and standards. — MarkH21 talk 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate.
The ONLY talk page I have found where "ceased to exist" is objected to as idiom is this one.are non-arguments and don’t address the issue here.
ceased to existbesides it being written in a source. If you refuse to debate the actual merits and precision of the wording then fine, I’ll open an RfC. — MarkH21 talk 01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You essentially rejected your own proposal" as I was with your earlier "
shot down your own proposal" (@ 03:15). (The shooting down of that proposal would be your continuation of that sentence: "
worse than other alternatives.") I don't see where I have "shot down" that proposal ("essentially" or otherwise), so please point to the specific text where you got that impression.
ceased to exist" with "
nearly completely destroyed". I responded to that in my following comments (at 22:23 28 Feb. and 00:32 1 March). QED: your statement of non-acknowledgement is FALSE. (I take response to be a form of acknowledegment, but perhaps you dispute that.)
In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan..., not the initial
nearly completely destroyedone. You still seemed to have missed that.
ducking outor anything else fitting that rhetoric. — MarkH21 talk 23:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me? You literally said Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you.
We were clearly not coming to an agreement so I opened the RfC. Re shot down
, I interpreted your But would there then be a problem with that not being exactly what he said?
that immediately followed as a dismissal of the preceding sentence. Okay, my interpretation of that was wrong based on your support for that option in the RfC below. I think we're done here. —
MarkH21
talk
00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
would there then be a problem ...?" (I was contemplating whether, if you and I agreed on that change, it might be challenged by other editors.)
we're done here", do you mean that you have withdrawn your objection to "ceased to exist"? Or perhaps you accept the qualification? Or something else? Is the RfC still needed? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
we're done heremeans there aren’t any outstanding issues, which are not part of the RfC below, that need to be addressed further in this section; i.e. we can just focus on the RfC. Although, I think our thoughts & positions are quite clear; perhaps waiting for more responses from the editors there / more editors and letting the RfC run its course would be most productive. — MarkH21 talk 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
(Splitting this issue from the above discussion)
If damaging
is taken in its most general sense (including human cost, physical damage, financial cost) then it is redundant with the sentence that immediately follows it (...making this the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.
). Number of deaths is a easily quantifiable and common way of describing the destructiveness of an earthquake (alongside magnitude, intensity scales, and financial cost).
If damaging
is taken to solely mean physical/structural damage:
damagingearthquakes, it says that it was
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world- this does not refer to physical damage alone.
one of the most(and regarded by whom?).
Then the claim is unreferenced. If this is purely about physical damage separate from the deadliness, then any claims about being a superlative for physical damage should be clearly sourced whether it is a specific claim (e.g. in terms of intensity scales or buildings destroyed) or a more general statement about physical damage. — MarkH21 talk 06:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world") is that it "
does not refer to physical damage alone." However, on that basis Housner's remark would be untrue, as the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake is generally considered the deadliest "in the history of the world." In fact it is quite clear from the context that Dr. Housner – don't forget that he was an engineer – was applying "disaster" to the failure of structures and their functioning. E.g., in the preceeding sentence he says:
An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes.
most damagingthat is the focus of this subsection, or about the RfC / original section’s discussion of the
ceased to exist matter?
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world. — MarkH21 talk 04:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Since you are so obtusely disputatious I submit a list of the 23 chapter headings from the four volumes of "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976". Note that ALL of these chapters are about engineering, buildings, structures, or geological/seismological aspects of the quake that are pertinent to engineering. I challenge you to find where this report discusses the overall death toll, other than incidentally.
Chapters in "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976"
|
---|
At https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/. Volume I: CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC ACTIVITY AND GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 2: ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY CHAPTER 3: EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY CHAPTER 4: STRONG EARTHQUAKE MOTION OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER 5: SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Volume II: CHAPTER 1: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT CHINESE BUILDINGS CHAPTER 3: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT Volumd III: CHAPTER 1: RAILWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 2: HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 3: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING CHAPTER 4: ENGINEERING FOR WATER TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 6: EARTHQUAKE RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION OF TANGSHAN Volume IV: CHAPTER 1: GENERAL VIEWS OF DAMAGE IN MEIZOSEISMAL AREA CHAPTER 2: GROUND FAILURE CHAPTER 3: CIVIL BUILDINGS CHAPTER 4: ANCIENT BUILDINGS CHAPTER 5: FACTORY BUILDINGS CHAPTER 6: INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES CHAPTER 7: RAILWAY AND HIGHWAY ENGINEERING CHAPTER 8: HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING OF WATER TRANSPORT |
The Overview volume mentions fatalities in three places, and almost incidentally. What is totally unsupported is your claim that Housner-He are not "referring solely to physical/structural damage
".
Also: as I have explained previously (did you read it?) if "greatest disaster" is interpreted as equivalent to "greatest number of deaths" than Housner's statement is incorrect. As that is quite unlikely, I suggest that your interpretation is incorrect. As you have not responded to my request (at 21:25 1 Mar.) for "some source that says otherwise", I think we can presume that you are unable to support that interpretation.
By the way,
WP:CHALLENGE also says: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
" Particularly irksome about your deletion is that there was no lack of a reliable source, nor even a lack of a citation (it was on the following sentence), but only that that sentence was missing its citation. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Obtusely disputatiousis language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me.Let's follow the logic here. I removed the because the newly inserted sentence because it was not clearly or directly referenced. You claim that the sentence
This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history
An earthquake disaster requires a large earthquake efficiently close to a large city to produce destructive ground shaking and that the city has buildings not designed to resist earthquakes. The Tangshan disaster met all these requirements and the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world.
one of the most damaging in modern historyand does not explicitly say that it was some superlative with regards to physical damage. It says that such an earthquake disaster requires substantial physical damage from a large enough earthquake, close proximity, and poor building structures. Anything else that may be inferred from the table of contents, the contents of the rest of the book, the fact that the authors are engineers, the fact that it was not the single deadliest earthquake whereas they use the words
greatest, etc. would indirectly support that Housner-He may mean physical damage when they say
the result was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world.These arguments do not do anything to provide a source that
directly supports the contributiona la WP:CHALLENGE (italics mine).Yes, WP:CHALLENGE acknowledges that some editors may object, and to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. That does not that it should be considered inappropriate to remove unreferenced material without taking the interim step.You said before that
I am rather neutral on whether it stays.If that's the case, then this is all unnecessary and an unproductive use of both your time and my time. — MarkH21 talk 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
directly supports" as requiring exact wording. I reject that, as W:V has no such requirement, and on showing that an exact quote (as proposed) would be counter-factual. Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse, given that 23 chapters of a four-volume engineering report firmly establish the engineering context of structure, infrastructure, etc., without any mention of the total death toll. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
directly supportsrequires exact wording. However, the passage does not directly say anything about any kind of superlative with respect to physical damage. I didn't say that that the book being about engineering is inferred, but that extrapolating that
the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the worldspecifically refers to physical damage from the fact that the rest of the book is about engineering is an inferral. That's what's indirect. — MarkH21 talk 23:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution(changed bolding is mine). It requires direct support from the reference.Again, I didn't say that Housner-He being about physical damage is an inference. That the specific phrase
greatest earthquake disasterin the prologue refers to physical damage is an inference. It is being inferred from the rest of the book being about physical damage.Okay, it's an EERL report; I was using the pdf version and I assumed that there was a book version. But surmising whether or not other editors have read the source is an ad hominem, and a speculative one at that. — MarkH21 talk 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the lead article have the sentence In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.
? Please decide on one of the three following proposals:
In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
(with or without theIn minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitantssub-clause)
In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist as a functioning entity. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.
Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC); converted talk-quotes to block-quotes and completed the quoted sentences in the proposals after unusable
00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
ceased to existwithout any other context can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is unnecessarily imprecise writing (besides being potentially idiomatic per Wiktionary list of English idioms and Farlex Dictionary of idioms), when the physical destruction is quantified in the subsequent sentence and human life loss is quantified later in the same paragraph.While the phrase is literally taken from the dramatic opening in the prologue to one of the sources ( Housner-He), the phrase
ceased to existis imprecise here due to its other connotations. It's unnecessary dramatic writing made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences per WP:IDIOM and general MOS guidelines for precision. Just because a source says it doesn't make it automatically worthy of inclusion.The third option is slightly better than the first but still suboptimal,
functioning entityreally is. The
ceased to existsentence doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences. — MarkH21 talk 07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC); fixed typo 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
an eminent authority on earthquake engineeringand just leave the name as a blue link). — MarkH21 talk 00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
worse than other alternatives." To the contrary, I argue that "nearly completely destroyed" is quite imprecise, and even something like "85% destroyed" is imprecise in the sense that it does not convey the essence of the matter: Tangshan ceased to function as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services. This is not "
made redundant" by the following sentences, as they do not state the consequence of all the destruction.
nearly completely destroyedis not in any of the proposed texts here.Also if your objection is that the essence of the matter is that Tangshan
was not able to provide any municipal services, notice that the sentence already says
Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, ...(bolding mine). Insert
municipalthere if you’d like.Also regarding your claim
but for reasons he has not explained he considers that "worse than other alternatives.", I gave reasons in the last paragraph of my comment above. — MarkH21 talk 01:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
[N]early completely destroyed" is what you initially suggested instead of "ceased to exist".
last paragraph" above (at 07:25, right?) are
suboptimal, [...] still somewhat imprecise by what a "functioning entity" really is", and
doesn't add much value anyways given the subsequent sentences." (What you described in your preceeding paragraph as "
made redundant by the direct later literal quantified sentences".)
Eighty-five percent of the buildings ...." Such quantification of the scale of destruction is a very crude measure that only roughly correlates with the effects, and, just as I have already said:
does not convey the essence of the matter: Tangshan ceased to function as a city, was not able to provide any municipal services.
nearly completely destroyedafter the second comment or so in the previous discussion and didn’t mention it here at the RfC. It’s moot.
failed to provide any municipal servicessubstantially different from the
all municipal services failed? No.
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("
Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("
Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling?
somewhat imprecise" (huh?) and "
doesn't add much value". On the contrary, I have argued that is a precise, succinct statement of the most significant aspect of the situation immediately following the quake. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a
oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do!It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful.The comment
Can you see what I mean here?(not bolded as quoted) was part of me actually asking you if you agree to some part of what I wrote. It's quite a stretch to interpret that as me claiming that you are blind or claiming anything about you.My point is and has been that the discussion of
nearly completely destroyedis moot because it is not part of any of the proposals in this RfC. And yes, it's still imprecise (a
functioning entitydoes not clearly connect to the point about municipal services) and we can also see that I'm not the only one who finds
ceased to exist as a functioning entityimprecise and awkward. The comment
doesn't add much valuemeans that the phrase
ceased to existdoesn't provide any more information than is given in the rest of the lead, particularly the subsequent two sentences.Again, your most significant aspect is already in all three proposed sentences in the bolded three words of
Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, ...— MarkH21 talk 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
hyperbolic language not well-suited to WP's encyclopedic tone." In the first place, that specific term is used over seven thousand times' on the 'pedia, which shows widespread, strong acceptance. Second, WP:TONE says:
Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
ceased to exist,
ceased to exist as a functioning entity,
ceased to exist as a functioning cityall do not describe anything precise with respect to
there were (effectively) no services available locally to help. The very next sentence also says that explicitly in
all services failed. — MarkH21 talk 00:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The essence of the matter. My comment wasn’t a response to Sdkb’s point about hyperbolic language (with which I agree).If the essence is that there were no municipal services anymore, I think that the subsequent compound sentence that states that there were no municipal services communicates that essence. Its also fine to split that phrase off into a separate sentence, if its emphasis is so necessary. But there’s no real need to summarize
all municipal services failedvia
ceased to existif another lead sentence says
all municipal services failed.— MarkH21 talk 04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
should not be used in an encyclopedia." A recent search shows that 7,614 articles use "ceased to exist", and the 'only complaint about that term I have found is here. On that basis I say that the WP community has accepted "ceased to exist". 7,613 times. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Mark was perhaps too shy to mention it here, but I would not want anyone to miss the fun we're having at ANI. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
When whoever wrote that this earthquake's magnitude was remeasured to be 7.6 on the Chinese scale or whatever in the first paragraph, the cited source https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26539/1/Tangshan/Volume1_Chapter_1.pdf does not say that at all?? In fact I cannot find the value 7.6 anywhere in there??? Other sources are corroborating that it is 7.6, but this is a poorly done citation unless I'm blatantly missing something. 165.124.85.25 ( talk) 04:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)