A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2004, May 31, 2005, May 31, 2006, May 31, 2007, May 31, 2008, May 31, 2009, and May 31, 2010. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 3 April 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from Johnstown Flood to Johnstown flood. The result of the discussion was Not Moved. |
The history channel special "the men who built America" had an amazing cgi recreation of what happened during this flood. This must be added to the article! It was during the episode "bloody battles" that this was shown
How did the dam break? What crucial part of the dam gave way to allow it to collapse?
It was a combination of factors which led to the disaster. Although well-engineered originally, the dam had broken once years earlier, had been rebuilt to lesser standards, and had been poorly maintained for many years. The top was lowered to build a roadway across it, and leaks on the downhill side were patched with mud, brush and scrap wood rather than stone. To make matters worse, additionally, its planned method of draining excess water through the spillway had been greatly reduced by fish screens, so there was no practical way to lower the level to work on it.
In that weakened condition, with inadequate ability to reduce water level, the dam and the small crew tending to it were faced with holding back the torrential rainfall over several days which basically swamped the dam near its center by going over the top, causing a massive washout of the center section. The lake was several miles long, and held something like 20 million tons of water. It is hard to visualize without seeing the terrain. After reading about it and seeing photos for years, I eventually got there, and only then could I appreciate how much water must have been involved. The lake is still drained, but you can see where it was. Awesome. Hope this answers your question. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 12:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
At least one sentence in this article seems to be very similar to another article which can be found at this website [2].
From this article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing industrial community known for the quality of its steel." From the johnstownpa.com article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing and industrious community known for the quality of its steel."
The original authorship of this particular piece of writing is actually a National Park Service brochure from the late 1980s, which has been repeatedly used without citation by countless sources. While almost everything the NPS does, as a taxpayer-funded operation, is considered public domain, it should be cited as such. Johnstownfloodof1889man ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)johnstownfloodof1889man
In the article, there are two sizes mentioned.
In the section "South Fork Dam and Lake Conemaugh", it states "The lake was about two miles (3 km) long", which agrees with the article South Fork Dam article.
In the section "The Great Flood of 1889", it states: "allowing the water of the 3-mile- (5 km) long Lake Conemaugh".
I will try to find my McCullough book and check it. Does anyone else know? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are at least three totally different values given in this article for the amount of water in the lake: 20 million tons, 20 million gallons, and 20,000 gallons. I'm pretty sure 20,000 gallons is incorrect, but someone needs to fix this error. — Bkell ( talk) 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A New York Times article [3] says that the lake is "eight miles long and three miles wide." It sounds like this might be the source of one of the conflicting numbers referenced by the park ranger above. Jpp42 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont edit, I just comment. But there is a contradiction in adjacent paragraphs about legal liability. One sentance says, victims could not recover because the Fish Club lacked adequate resources to pay. But the next paragraph states that the Club was not found liable due to the nature of liability law in PA at the time. It cant be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.245.86 ( talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In a sense, any disaster is natural, since it relies on the laws of nature (for example, 9/11 couldn't have happened without such phenomena as gravity and combustion). But outside this tortured definition, the Johnstown Flood can't be considered a natural disaster. It was engineering malpractice, pure and simple. An artificial reservior with an elaborate control system was built high in the mountains. Then the control system was removed but the reservoir was retained. It was then only a matter of time until a period of heavy-enough rainfall came to overtop the earthen dam. Nature controlled only the timing of the disaster.
The "natural disaster" angle seems to have been played up to deflect blame from the enormously powerful Pennsylvania Railroad. Now that it's no longer a threat to us, let's feel free to speak the truth.
Do you Wikipedians agree? If so, shouldn't this article be removed from the "natural disasters" category? Let's discuss.
FYI,
The images that were supposedly of the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 were discovered to be doctored images of the Johnstown Flood of 1889. Here's the link: [4], and do a search for Galveston. The details on the images explain the doctoring. The images are government images so they should be public domain.
25or6to4 ( talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This disaster was clearly the result of human mistakes. A previous comment phrases it perfectly: "Nature only affected the timing of the disaster." Earthen dams have been used since antiquity, and they are very effective and can be made safe. The original builders of the dam in question were extremely competent and made a safe dam. The top of the dam was an adequate height above the surface of the lake. There was a spillway on one side to relieve high water levels, and if the spillway was insufficient to control water levels, underwater pipes controlled by valves operated from a control tower could be used to drain more water. All these devices were important because the worst thing that can happen to an earthen dam is to have water go over the top. This dredges the top soil off the dam, and as the top of the dam lowers, more water overflows, setting up a rapidly increasing failure mode. The purchaser of the dam and lake, who developed it as a vacation site for the wealthy patrons of the club, simply did not consult with a competent enough engineer before he modified the dam. The top was lowered to accomodate two carriages side by side. The spillway was screened to keep game fish from exiting the lake, and the drainage pipes were removed and sold for scrap. In its final form the water was just a few feet from the top, with no way to lower the levels in case torrential rains overfilled the lake. During the storms leading to the disaster, debris rapidly collected on the spillway screens, choking the only exit available for the extra water. Even in that era, the parlous state of the modified dam could have been forseen by any competent dam engineer. It's true that the members of the club, not being engineers, could not have been aware of these faults, but they nevertheless were principals in the company responsible for the calamitous dam modifications, and should have been held legally liable, as they would be today. The original developer who initiated the dam modifications had passed away before the flood, but the corporation and its members are still liable. In my opinion, the immense wealth and social prominence of the club members, and their huge political influence no doubt was responsible for their complete exoneration in this case. I would not be surprised if further scholarly research eventually unearths (no pun intended) some shady financial dealings associated with the denouement of this affair. Cd195 ( talk) 06:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence on the Rob Szabo song "The Johnstown Kids", as the song has nothing to do with the flood. -- 24.145.4.58 ( talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend adding a section about the media coverage of the disaster. There was tremendous amount of yellow journalism surrounding the flood, including many stories of corpses being robbed of valuables (most were later discredited). On a positive note, the media coverage also helped garner the support of citizens across the U.S. and several other countries, leading to over $3,000,000 in donations.
Example - June 2, 1898: "10,000 Dead: Johnstown Blotted out by the Flood" - World
Sources (most available on Google): The Johnstown flood, By David G. McCullough; The Principles of Relief, By Edward T. Devine; The Red Cross in peace and war, By Clara Barton; American datelines: major news stories from colonial times to the present, By Ed Cray, Jonathan Kotler, Miles Beller DCSB2005 ( talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
After the flood, the Pennsylvania legislature adopted a temporary tax on telephone service, which is still in effect today. Can some editor research this to find a good source? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is really a liquor tax. Check out your local State Store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.245.86 ( talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Gutenberg book with some illustrations and other infos: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27669 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Tough to tell when such a tiny amount of material has been cited, but should this article contain reference to "sex slaves," "weener size," and "asian minorities, hispanics, and white boys"? Arnold Rothstein1921 ( talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Turkey didn't exist in 1889. 70.190.168.175 ( talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Johnstown Flood →
Johnstown flood – Case norm per
MOS:CAPS; not usually capitalized in sources. –
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. After a week and a half, it's clear that no consensus will be found for any of the various suggested titles. It's worth pointing out that it does seem that "Johnstown Flood of 1889" is in common use, along with some other variants like "Great Johnstown Flood", but there wasn't much to suggest that they were more common than the present title, or that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Johnstown Flood →
??? – Choices would be 1)- the
Great Johnstown Flood of 1889, for the joy of capitalizing the "F", and making the word a noun, 2)- Johnstown flood of 1889 and, 3)- Johnstown floods with content concerning all the floods sort of like it is now but expanded. The current name is ambiguous and does not conform to several instances of policies/and or guidelines such as
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Use commonly recognizable names and
Deciding on an article title.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization goes a step farther than
MOS:CAPS, that states "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles.". There were floods in 1894, 1907, and 1924, this flood, the flood of 1936, and the second great flood of 1977 (Ref:
second great flood hits Johnstown (1977)) as well as around 3 more, so the current name can not possibly be considered a proper noun.
Otr500 (
talk)
04:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a flood simulation video on YouTube that is very interesting. It continues with other information on Johnstown and the flood. The external links section already lists probably more than it should but if this was deemed helpful maybe it could be used in place of one already there. Otr500 ( talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Johnstown Flood (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danibanani3 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter ( talk) 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The final chapter is about the Johnstown flood telling many eyewitness accounts 2601:2C3:4380:AB0:1C7D:829C:AD6F:578 ( talk) 21:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The article claims that difficulty recovering damages from the Dam owners "led to American law changing from a fault-based regime to one of strict liability."
I find that both hard to believe and unsupported by any references mentioned in the article. It's also contradicted by the "strict liability" article which the sentence links to.
I'm tempted to remove the entire sentence from the article but I'm writing here first to solicit feedback before doing so. 20after4 ( talk) 02:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 31, 2004, May 31, 2005, May 31, 2006, May 31, 2007, May 31, 2008, May 31, 2009, and May 31, 2010. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 3 April 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from Johnstown Flood to Johnstown flood. The result of the discussion was Not Moved. |
The history channel special "the men who built America" had an amazing cgi recreation of what happened during this flood. This must be added to the article! It was during the episode "bloody battles" that this was shown
How did the dam break? What crucial part of the dam gave way to allow it to collapse?
It was a combination of factors which led to the disaster. Although well-engineered originally, the dam had broken once years earlier, had been rebuilt to lesser standards, and had been poorly maintained for many years. The top was lowered to build a roadway across it, and leaks on the downhill side were patched with mud, brush and scrap wood rather than stone. To make matters worse, additionally, its planned method of draining excess water through the spillway had been greatly reduced by fish screens, so there was no practical way to lower the level to work on it.
In that weakened condition, with inadequate ability to reduce water level, the dam and the small crew tending to it were faced with holding back the torrential rainfall over several days which basically swamped the dam near its center by going over the top, causing a massive washout of the center section. The lake was several miles long, and held something like 20 million tons of water. It is hard to visualize without seeing the terrain. After reading about it and seeing photos for years, I eventually got there, and only then could I appreciate how much water must have been involved. The lake is still drained, but you can see where it was. Awesome. Hope this answers your question. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 12:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
At least one sentence in this article seems to be very similar to another article which can be found at this website [2].
From this article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing industrial community known for the quality of its steel." From the johnstownpa.com article: "With a population of 30,000, it was a growing and industrious community known for the quality of its steel."
The original authorship of this particular piece of writing is actually a National Park Service brochure from the late 1980s, which has been repeatedly used without citation by countless sources. While almost everything the NPS does, as a taxpayer-funded operation, is considered public domain, it should be cited as such. Johnstownfloodof1889man ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)johnstownfloodof1889man
In the article, there are two sizes mentioned.
In the section "South Fork Dam and Lake Conemaugh", it states "The lake was about two miles (3 km) long", which agrees with the article South Fork Dam article.
In the section "The Great Flood of 1889", it states: "allowing the water of the 3-mile- (5 km) long Lake Conemaugh".
I will try to find my McCullough book and check it. Does anyone else know? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There are at least three totally different values given in this article for the amount of water in the lake: 20 million tons, 20 million gallons, and 20,000 gallons. I'm pretty sure 20,000 gallons is incorrect, but someone needs to fix this error. — Bkell ( talk) 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A New York Times article [3] says that the lake is "eight miles long and three miles wide." It sounds like this might be the source of one of the conflicting numbers referenced by the park ranger above. Jpp42 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont edit, I just comment. But there is a contradiction in adjacent paragraphs about legal liability. One sentance says, victims could not recover because the Fish Club lacked adequate resources to pay. But the next paragraph states that the Club was not found liable due to the nature of liability law in PA at the time. It cant be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.245.86 ( talk) 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In a sense, any disaster is natural, since it relies on the laws of nature (for example, 9/11 couldn't have happened without such phenomena as gravity and combustion). But outside this tortured definition, the Johnstown Flood can't be considered a natural disaster. It was engineering malpractice, pure and simple. An artificial reservior with an elaborate control system was built high in the mountains. Then the control system was removed but the reservoir was retained. It was then only a matter of time until a period of heavy-enough rainfall came to overtop the earthen dam. Nature controlled only the timing of the disaster.
The "natural disaster" angle seems to have been played up to deflect blame from the enormously powerful Pennsylvania Railroad. Now that it's no longer a threat to us, let's feel free to speak the truth.
Do you Wikipedians agree? If so, shouldn't this article be removed from the "natural disasters" category? Let's discuss.
FYI,
The images that were supposedly of the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 were discovered to be doctored images of the Johnstown Flood of 1889. Here's the link: [4], and do a search for Galveston. The details on the images explain the doctoring. The images are government images so they should be public domain.
25or6to4 ( talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This disaster was clearly the result of human mistakes. A previous comment phrases it perfectly: "Nature only affected the timing of the disaster." Earthen dams have been used since antiquity, and they are very effective and can be made safe. The original builders of the dam in question were extremely competent and made a safe dam. The top of the dam was an adequate height above the surface of the lake. There was a spillway on one side to relieve high water levels, and if the spillway was insufficient to control water levels, underwater pipes controlled by valves operated from a control tower could be used to drain more water. All these devices were important because the worst thing that can happen to an earthen dam is to have water go over the top. This dredges the top soil off the dam, and as the top of the dam lowers, more water overflows, setting up a rapidly increasing failure mode. The purchaser of the dam and lake, who developed it as a vacation site for the wealthy patrons of the club, simply did not consult with a competent enough engineer before he modified the dam. The top was lowered to accomodate two carriages side by side. The spillway was screened to keep game fish from exiting the lake, and the drainage pipes were removed and sold for scrap. In its final form the water was just a few feet from the top, with no way to lower the levels in case torrential rains overfilled the lake. During the storms leading to the disaster, debris rapidly collected on the spillway screens, choking the only exit available for the extra water. Even in that era, the parlous state of the modified dam could have been forseen by any competent dam engineer. It's true that the members of the club, not being engineers, could not have been aware of these faults, but they nevertheless were principals in the company responsible for the calamitous dam modifications, and should have been held legally liable, as they would be today. The original developer who initiated the dam modifications had passed away before the flood, but the corporation and its members are still liable. In my opinion, the immense wealth and social prominence of the club members, and their huge political influence no doubt was responsible for their complete exoneration in this case. I would not be surprised if further scholarly research eventually unearths (no pun intended) some shady financial dealings associated with the denouement of this affair. Cd195 ( talk) 06:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence on the Rob Szabo song "The Johnstown Kids", as the song has nothing to do with the flood. -- 24.145.4.58 ( talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend adding a section about the media coverage of the disaster. There was tremendous amount of yellow journalism surrounding the flood, including many stories of corpses being robbed of valuables (most were later discredited). On a positive note, the media coverage also helped garner the support of citizens across the U.S. and several other countries, leading to over $3,000,000 in donations.
Example - June 2, 1898: "10,000 Dead: Johnstown Blotted out by the Flood" - World
Sources (most available on Google): The Johnstown flood, By David G. McCullough; The Principles of Relief, By Edward T. Devine; The Red Cross in peace and war, By Clara Barton; American datelines: major news stories from colonial times to the present, By Ed Cray, Jonathan Kotler, Miles Beller DCSB2005 ( talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
After the flood, the Pennsylvania legislature adopted a temporary tax on telephone service, which is still in effect today. Can some editor research this to find a good source? -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is really a liquor tax. Check out your local State Store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.245.86 ( talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Gutenberg book with some illustrations and other infos: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27669 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Tough to tell when such a tiny amount of material has been cited, but should this article contain reference to "sex slaves," "weener size," and "asian minorities, hispanics, and white boys"? Arnold Rothstein1921 ( talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Turkey didn't exist in 1889. 70.190.168.175 ( talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 13:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Johnstown Flood →
Johnstown flood – Case norm per
MOS:CAPS; not usually capitalized in sources. –
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. After a week and a half, it's clear that no consensus will be found for any of the various suggested titles. It's worth pointing out that it does seem that "Johnstown Flood of 1889" is in common use, along with some other variants like "Great Johnstown Flood", but there wasn't much to suggest that they were more common than the present title, or that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Johnstown Flood →
??? – Choices would be 1)- the
Great Johnstown Flood of 1889, for the joy of capitalizing the "F", and making the word a noun, 2)- Johnstown flood of 1889 and, 3)- Johnstown floods with content concerning all the floods sort of like it is now but expanded. The current name is ambiguous and does not conform to several instances of policies/and or guidelines such as
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Use commonly recognizable names and
Deciding on an article title.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization goes a step farther than
MOS:CAPS, that states "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles.". There were floods in 1894, 1907, and 1924, this flood, the flood of 1936, and the second great flood of 1977 (Ref:
second great flood hits Johnstown (1977)) as well as around 3 more, so the current name can not possibly be considered a proper noun.
Otr500 (
talk)
04:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a flood simulation video on YouTube that is very interesting. It continues with other information on Johnstown and the flood. The external links section already lists probably more than it should but if this was deemed helpful maybe it could be used in place of one already there. Otr500 ( talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnstown Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Johnstown Flood (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danibanani3 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter ( talk) 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The final chapter is about the Johnstown flood telling many eyewitness accounts 2601:2C3:4380:AB0:1C7D:829C:AD6F:578 ( talk) 21:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The article claims that difficulty recovering damages from the Dam owners "led to American law changing from a fault-based regime to one of strict liability."
I find that both hard to believe and unsupported by any references mentioned in the article. It's also contradicted by the "strict liability" article which the sentence links to.
I'm tempted to remove the entire sentence from the article but I'm writing here first to solicit feedback before doing so. 20after4 ( talk) 02:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)