This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1556 Shaanxi earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
1556 Shaanxi earthquake was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 23, 2007, January 23, 2010, January 23, 2013, January 23, 2018, January 23, 2022, and January 23, 2023. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
List_of_earthquakes has: 1201, Upper Egypt or Syria 1,100,000 deaths. But no details. If this is true, the Shanxi earthquake would only rank as the second most devastating natural disaster on record. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) The most devastating disaster is the the earthquake which took plac in China in 1971 and neither of the above.-- Sugreev2001 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says 14 February, the ext lk says 2 February, and the quake is listed on the 23 January days-of-the-year page. –Hajor 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there any other big earthquakes that happened in Shaanxi? Because currently, Shaanxi earthquake redirects here, wouldn't Shaanxi earthquake be a better place for the article? - Hahnchen 16:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin, and have made the move, since your points make sense. — Lowellian ( reply) 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a bit of research on Google Print, and here's an academic source which talks about the Shaanxi earthquake:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0442251912/
All the reports are the same-- 830000 deaths, 8.3 Richter scale-- which makes me think they are drawing from a single, 20th century academic source, which itself draws from a single Chinese primary source. Ashibaka ( tock) 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
removed "Mao-Tse-Tung, for example, personally claimed to be responsible for the deaths of over 60 million people." and replaced it with a sentence about the Three Years of Natural Disasters Astrokey44 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I took the paragraph out altogether. To what extent the famine was "natural" is certainly a point of dispute. And as disasters come, the famine took about as many lives as the Japanese invasion. Both of these seem to me strange animals to compare an earthquake to. Plus, 830.000 was of course many more per cent of Ming China's population that it would be today. 00.30 January 2006
I put it as a stub, because it still is. It's just 3 short paragraphs. Needs lots of improvment. -- Weirdperson11 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've been thinking it would be good to come up with an appropriate outline for this article. Maybe that will help get things rolling and help organize thoughts. So, based loosely on 2005 Kashmir earthquake, I've come up with a proposed outline:
(Intro paragraph)
The earthquake
Information about tectonic plates colliding, approximate epicenter location, aftershocks, etc. Was this one big earthquake or a series of earthquakes? (This section is scientific explanation/description of the earthquake.)
Casualties
Here we detail how many died as a direct result of the earthquake. How many died as an indirect result of the earthquake? Address differing reports on the death toll. A little Information about the loess caves (more detailed info in the Damage section). Any information about numbers injured who survived, if available. Information about rescues (if available). (This section is about how people were effected.)
Damage
Here, information about damage and destruction should be included/detailed. More details about the loess caves. Including the stone classics, steles, Small Wild Goose Pagoda, etc. If known, how did this effect commerce, government, etc.? Is it true that we cannot estimate the damage in monetary terms?
References
All references, including websites, should be listed here.
External links
-- RobbyPrather (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says "A 520-mile area was destroyed". This is nonsense. Mile is not a unit of area. Thue | talk 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
When it says in the first paragraph, "...with great loss of life", would that make it a run-on sentence? it seems so to me...please respond. ((LindVurm))
No. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't known the protocol with Wikipedia in regard to tranliterations of Chinese words, however the US Geological Survey lists this earthquake as the "Shensi" of January 23, 1556. Not listing this word anywhere in the article keeps it from appearing when one googles the name listed by the USGS. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/most_destructive.php Theophilus Reed ( talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a tag in the lead that needs to be fixed.
Removed tag per no sources, unnecessary tag anyway. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to expand the lead.
Could someone help me find references?
This article is very good. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:1556 Shaanxi earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Its an interesting article but I think there are a few improvements to be made. I would remove any spaces or carriage returns after the end of a sentence and before the ref tags, so that each reference is butted up against the last word or punctuation mark to the left - this will make things neater. I think the lead contains slightly too much information, information that could be used in the sections below. Also, the link to the disambiguation page is red - perhaps this is as yet, unnecessary?
I'm not sure exactly what was destroyed from the 520 mile area - I presume property and infrastructure, but could you expand on this? The nuclear weapon quote seems somewhat dubious - is there a recognised method of comparing such disasters to the yield of a nuclear weapon? The cost section makes no mention of it, I would suggest that the nuclear quote should perhaps be in this section, and not the lead. I'm not sure the list of deadliest earthquakes table is required - especially as you have a link to this in the 'see also' section. I think you could also do with a few more references. Parrot of Doom ( talk)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
As in my initial review I think it has promise, however, the article needs to be much more descriptive than it currently is, leaving the reader in no doubt as to exactly what happened, and the scale of the damage, and to be able to visualise the event as it occurred. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further, once these issues have been dealt with you should resubmit the article for GA review.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Parrot of Doom ( talk) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just want to know what magnitude scale was used to measure this earthquake (e.g. richter's, moment of magnitude...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.104.252 ( talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just edited the article to clean up the grammar and remove two possible instances of vandalism by abunchofnumbers. I have edited the sentence
The soft loess clay had formed huricans in millions of years due to wind blowing silt to the area from the Gobi Desert.
to
The soft loess clay had formed over millions of years due to wind blowing silt into the area from the Gobi Desert.
"Huricans" does not appear to be a word, but I have very little familiarity with technical terms used in the field of geology, so if there was some nuance that my edit destroyed please feel free to restore the intended meaning. - Greenmango ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding:
I deem this source to be unreliable. The material for which it is cited might be true, but the sources Eaton cites (particularly notes 1 and 2, the Encyclopedia Britannica and an archived USGS page, resp.) do not support the content. (The Google Books link does not include the endnotes for Chapter 12, but they were kindly supplied here.) The content there (like the rest of the"History in 50" series) appears to be scraped off the Internet with very shallow sourcing (such as Wikipedia). (For a humorous interlude see this cartoon about where citations come from.)
[Splitting off the rest of this discussion as we have transcended this particular source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)]
[Split from the prior section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)]
It appears that "830,000 dead in Shaanxi" (etc.) has become an "everyone knows" kind of factoid for which no one (?) remembers the original and factual source, and as such I would say fails verification. (Not that we can't use it, but it should be properly qualified.) As far as I can tell the original sources for this quake are in Chinese. It would be definite benefit if someone fluent in Chinese could do a proper search for materials on this quake, and add them to the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It further appears that the original and authoritative sources for this event are in Chinese. Googling on "site:en.cnki.com.cn 1556 earthquake
" returns English-language abstracts of likely relevant articles, but that site is a paywall. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
the Shaanxi death toll was much greater because the 830,000 number was only of the identified deadbased on some citeable authority? Or on your own reading of the historical text? While I will readily allow that you quite likely know these ancient sources (or at least their modern renditions) better than I, still, it seems like a novel idea not supported by published, reliable sources. And therefore WP:OR. (And recognizing the irony that the standard number/interpretation lacks reliable sourcing. But I am making progress on that!)
reduced population in registration, including people died from injuries, illness, starvations, coldness after the shock, and from plague occurred in the next year and disappeared people (including families escaped), rather than the number of people killed directly by the earthquake." He puts the actual death toll at 530k. But he seems to have been ignored. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In support of the death toll and other details of the 1556 Shaanxi (Huaxian) earthquake, this article (and also 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1556 in science, and Lists of earthquakes) uses the citation:
International Association of Engineering Geology International Congress. Proceedings. [1990] (1990). ISBN 90-6191-664-X.
Quite aside from the defects of the citation itself (missing the author, title, and page range of the paper), there is a problem with the source: I have not found a copy for verification. I am therefore tagging it. If anyone can find a copy (see Resource Request [ archived]) please let me know. Even better would be other authoritative sources, but it appears those are in Chinese. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added Du et al. 2017 (an English translation of a journal article in Chinese; see here) for the death toll. However, it does not entirely replace the IAEG source, as it does not support all of the details for which the IAEG source is cited. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The changes made recently to the article were unexplained. One of the citations did not appear to link anywhere and I have been unable to find a paper that matches the details given. For this reason I have reverted these changes until a complete citation appears. Mikenorton ( talk) 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
everything unhelpful thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.185.249.163 (
talk) 20:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to have a present-day political map to show a Ming dynasty event, which, on top of that, contradicts the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. It unnecessarily expresses a standpoint manifested in many due to biased media and disregards the official policies by the UN and the governments of some 180 countries, a modern problem. Please leave that out of here. Administrative divisions are well documented by the Ming court and maps certainly available.-- 91.142.213.109 ( talk) 20:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be used in recent sources including: (2018)-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
A recent change was made to the death toll, to a much lower figure, which I reverted. I suggest that we discuss this here before making such a drastic change. Mikenorton ( talk) 14:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
References
1556年陕西发生大地震,当时死亡10万人,而第2年发生大瘟疫,却死亡70多万人 [100,000 died in 1556, while a plague struck the subsequent year and led to a further death of 700,000-odd.]
实则直接死于地震的只有十数万人,其余70余万人均死于瘟疫和饥荒 [Actually direct deaths from earthquake amount to 100,000-odd, the remaining 700,000-odd were died from plagues and famine]
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1556 Shaanxi earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
1556 Shaanxi earthquake was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 23, 2007, January 23, 2010, January 23, 2013, January 23, 2018, January 23, 2022, and January 23, 2023. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
List_of_earthquakes has: 1201, Upper Egypt or Syria 1,100,000 deaths. But no details. If this is true, the Shanxi earthquake would only rank as the second most devastating natural disaster on record. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) The most devastating disaster is the the earthquake which took plac in China in 1971 and neither of the above.-- Sugreev2001 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says 14 February, the ext lk says 2 February, and the quake is listed on the 23 January days-of-the-year page. –Hajor 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there any other big earthquakes that happened in Shaanxi? Because currently, Shaanxi earthquake redirects here, wouldn't Shaanxi earthquake be a better place for the article? - Hahnchen 16:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm an admin, and have made the move, since your points make sense. — Lowellian ( reply) 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a bit of research on Google Print, and here's an academic source which talks about the Shaanxi earthquake:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0442251912/
All the reports are the same-- 830000 deaths, 8.3 Richter scale-- which makes me think they are drawing from a single, 20th century academic source, which itself draws from a single Chinese primary source. Ashibaka ( tock) 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
removed "Mao-Tse-Tung, for example, personally claimed to be responsible for the deaths of over 60 million people." and replaced it with a sentence about the Three Years of Natural Disasters Astrokey44 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I took the paragraph out altogether. To what extent the famine was "natural" is certainly a point of dispute. And as disasters come, the famine took about as many lives as the Japanese invasion. Both of these seem to me strange animals to compare an earthquake to. Plus, 830.000 was of course many more per cent of Ming China's population that it would be today. 00.30 January 2006
I put it as a stub, because it still is. It's just 3 short paragraphs. Needs lots of improvment. -- Weirdperson11 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I've been thinking it would be good to come up with an appropriate outline for this article. Maybe that will help get things rolling and help organize thoughts. So, based loosely on 2005 Kashmir earthquake, I've come up with a proposed outline:
(Intro paragraph)
The earthquake
Information about tectonic plates colliding, approximate epicenter location, aftershocks, etc. Was this one big earthquake or a series of earthquakes? (This section is scientific explanation/description of the earthquake.)
Casualties
Here we detail how many died as a direct result of the earthquake. How many died as an indirect result of the earthquake? Address differing reports on the death toll. A little Information about the loess caves (more detailed info in the Damage section). Any information about numbers injured who survived, if available. Information about rescues (if available). (This section is about how people were effected.)
Damage
Here, information about damage and destruction should be included/detailed. More details about the loess caves. Including the stone classics, steles, Small Wild Goose Pagoda, etc. If known, how did this effect commerce, government, etc.? Is it true that we cannot estimate the damage in monetary terms?
References
All references, including websites, should be listed here.
External links
-- RobbyPrather (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says "A 520-mile area was destroyed". This is nonsense. Mile is not a unit of area. Thue | talk 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
When it says in the first paragraph, "...with great loss of life", would that make it a run-on sentence? it seems so to me...please respond. ((LindVurm))
No. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't known the protocol with Wikipedia in regard to tranliterations of Chinese words, however the US Geological Survey lists this earthquake as the "Shensi" of January 23, 1556. Not listing this word anywhere in the article keeps it from appearing when one googles the name listed by the USGS. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/most_destructive.php Theophilus Reed ( talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a tag in the lead that needs to be fixed.
Removed tag per no sources, unnecessary tag anyway. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to expand the lead.
Could someone help me find references?
This article is very good. ~ Me ldshal 42 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:1556 Shaanxi earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Its an interesting article but I think there are a few improvements to be made. I would remove any spaces or carriage returns after the end of a sentence and before the ref tags, so that each reference is butted up against the last word or punctuation mark to the left - this will make things neater. I think the lead contains slightly too much information, information that could be used in the sections below. Also, the link to the disambiguation page is red - perhaps this is as yet, unnecessary?
I'm not sure exactly what was destroyed from the 520 mile area - I presume property and infrastructure, but could you expand on this? The nuclear weapon quote seems somewhat dubious - is there a recognised method of comparing such disasters to the yield of a nuclear weapon? The cost section makes no mention of it, I would suggest that the nuclear quote should perhaps be in this section, and not the lead. I'm not sure the list of deadliest earthquakes table is required - especially as you have a link to this in the 'see also' section. I think you could also do with a few more references. Parrot of Doom ( talk)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
As in my initial review I think it has promise, however, the article needs to be much more descriptive than it currently is, leaving the reader in no doubt as to exactly what happened, and the scale of the damage, and to be able to visualise the event as it occurred. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further, once these issues have been dealt with you should resubmit the article for GA review.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Parrot of Doom ( talk) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just want to know what magnitude scale was used to measure this earthquake (e.g. richter's, moment of magnitude...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.104.252 ( talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just edited the article to clean up the grammar and remove two possible instances of vandalism by abunchofnumbers. I have edited the sentence
The soft loess clay had formed huricans in millions of years due to wind blowing silt to the area from the Gobi Desert.
to
The soft loess clay had formed over millions of years due to wind blowing silt into the area from the Gobi Desert.
"Huricans" does not appear to be a word, but I have very little familiarity with technical terms used in the field of geology, so if there was some nuance that my edit destroyed please feel free to restore the intended meaning. - Greenmango ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding:
I deem this source to be unreliable. The material for which it is cited might be true, but the sources Eaton cites (particularly notes 1 and 2, the Encyclopedia Britannica and an archived USGS page, resp.) do not support the content. (The Google Books link does not include the endnotes for Chapter 12, but they were kindly supplied here.) The content there (like the rest of the"History in 50" series) appears to be scraped off the Internet with very shallow sourcing (such as Wikipedia). (For a humorous interlude see this cartoon about where citations come from.)
[Splitting off the rest of this discussion as we have transcended this particular source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)]
[Split from the prior section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)]
It appears that "830,000 dead in Shaanxi" (etc.) has become an "everyone knows" kind of factoid for which no one (?) remembers the original and factual source, and as such I would say fails verification. (Not that we can't use it, but it should be properly qualified.) As far as I can tell the original sources for this quake are in Chinese. It would be definite benefit if someone fluent in Chinese could do a proper search for materials on this quake, and add them to the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It further appears that the original and authoritative sources for this event are in Chinese. Googling on "site:en.cnki.com.cn 1556 earthquake
" returns English-language abstracts of likely relevant articles, but that site is a paywall. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
the Shaanxi death toll was much greater because the 830,000 number was only of the identified deadbased on some citeable authority? Or on your own reading of the historical text? While I will readily allow that you quite likely know these ancient sources (or at least their modern renditions) better than I, still, it seems like a novel idea not supported by published, reliable sources. And therefore WP:OR. (And recognizing the irony that the standard number/interpretation lacks reliable sourcing. But I am making progress on that!)
reduced population in registration, including people died from injuries, illness, starvations, coldness after the shock, and from plague occurred in the next year and disappeared people (including families escaped), rather than the number of people killed directly by the earthquake." He puts the actual death toll at 530k. But he seems to have been ignored. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In support of the death toll and other details of the 1556 Shaanxi (Huaxian) earthquake, this article (and also 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1556 in science, and Lists of earthquakes) uses the citation:
International Association of Engineering Geology International Congress. Proceedings. [1990] (1990). ISBN 90-6191-664-X.
Quite aside from the defects of the citation itself (missing the author, title, and page range of the paper), there is a problem with the source: I have not found a copy for verification. I am therefore tagging it. If anyone can find a copy (see Resource Request [ archived]) please let me know. Even better would be other authoritative sources, but it appears those are in Chinese. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added Du et al. 2017 (an English translation of a journal article in Chinese; see here) for the death toll. However, it does not entirely replace the IAEG source, as it does not support all of the details for which the IAEG source is cited. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The changes made recently to the article were unexplained. One of the citations did not appear to link anywhere and I have been unable to find a paper that matches the details given. For this reason I have reverted these changes until a complete citation appears. Mikenorton ( talk) 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
everything unhelpful thanks — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.185.249.163 (
talk) 20:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to have a present-day political map to show a Ming dynasty event, which, on top of that, contradicts the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. It unnecessarily expresses a standpoint manifested in many due to biased media and disregards the official policies by the UN and the governments of some 180 countries, a modern problem. Please leave that out of here. Administrative divisions are well documented by the Ming court and maps certainly available.-- 91.142.213.109 ( talk) 20:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be used in recent sources including: (2018)-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
A recent change was made to the death toll, to a much lower figure, which I reverted. I suggest that we discuss this here before making such a drastic change. Mikenorton ( talk) 14:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
References
1556年陕西发生大地震,当时死亡10万人,而第2年发生大瘟疫,却死亡70多万人 [100,000 died in 1556, while a plague struck the subsequent year and led to a further death of 700,000-odd.]
实则直接死于地震的只有十数万人,其余70余万人均死于瘟疫和饥荒 [Actually direct deaths from earthquake amount to 100,000-odd, the remaining 700,000-odd were died from plagues and famine]
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)