Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Earthquake prediction

On searching around for information about this disaster it would seem that it is of quite significance with regard to the prediction of earthquakes. Knowing nothing about this I'll have to pass that on to others here – hopefully a great article could be made of this. violet/riga (t) 23:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name

If its really known as the "Great Tangshan earthquake" (as the first sentence says), why isn't that the name of the article?

I don't think it really matters that much, the "great" comes from the chinese translation of da4 though i think its the only major earthquake to occur in the tangshan area so leaving the title as is is fine --Sasquatch 03:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think just because one seismology text abbreviates it to GTE for reasons of brevity it is pushing it a bit to claim that it is known as the GTE. It looks silly. Cripipper (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I wonder if this article is good enough for WP:FAC? It needs some references, but I think deals with the subject reasonably well. Perhaps WP:PR would be a better place first? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is well-written, but pretty weak on citations. Also, there is a little bit of awkwardness in the section about earthquake prediction... it almost looks like the remnant of some past NPOV problems. Anyway, agree that with some aggressive sourcing, this could be a great article. --Jaysweet 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but standards have improved so much in 18 months that I doubt that it would stand much of a chance as it stands without a significant amount of work. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know if I could get a pizza around here? -somone you don't know

Early warnings and predictions - no refs

Given that lots of people are going to be reading this right now, I think we should consider either deleting the 1st para of this section, or trying hard to track down some references quickly. What do others think? --  Chzz  ►  19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote of Jiang Qing

The quote of Jiang Qing in regard to the renunciation of Deng conflicts with the quote on the Chinese wikipedia page, according to which the same quote is of Yao Wenyuan instead of Jiang Qing. Chevrox (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They seem totally out of place to me. How often do you see political slogan quoted like such on wikipedia? I can't recall any examples, even in political heavy articles. This article is about an earthquake. Why is so much emphasis applied to the political aspect?
Basically, the earthquake occured in very politically sensitive time, when China was going through a power transition. It is important to note that the authorities were more focused on political struggle than earthquake relief. It also serves as a great contrast to the on-going disaster relief operations of the Sichuan earthquake.
I agree with both points of view. The prominence of the quotes seems inappropriate, yet they do convey important information about the struggle over political priorities at the time. How about rewriting the whole section? Wameya (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

"As the whole city was demolished, it would be safe to say the actual death toll is much higher."

That the whole city is demolished does not mean that all, or even half, of the 1.6 million would have died. This seems like amateur statistics and couch guesstimation to me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's hardly to imagine half population could die in one earthquake without other examples. DerekJoe 12:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekjoe (talk • contribs)

Let me try to change that. Colipon+(T) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Mk II

The PLA is not the Red Guards, and it's hard to see why the PLA's reputation would be tarnished because of Red Guard activities. Someone needs to explain this properly, otherwise this reads like nonsense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok don't go deleting sources because you think it is a "novel". The quote is famous every where except in the PRC. You can find another source to support it. The biographical account is been heard before. Also the aid refusal part is well known. This article could be much worse. Such as the 1970s teenagers going around spreading the mao phrase "the more chaos the better". Benjwong (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wild Swans is not a reliable historical source. The quotes are misattributed, as has been pointed out above. The part about PLA and Red Guards seems to be an elementary confusion about who the "Red Guards" were. Surely better sources can be found, and my preference is for inaccurate statements to be removed rather than sitting there misleading people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) njbhilgbyuuuuuuvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvhjbbbbbbbbbbbbyugfvtycovlljkbhkjyubggvyugbjkbbbbbuhbkllbkjbbbuhguih89h9;huuuuuuhfuejdkjndhfrifhngkkcnejd djiuhef9h8parhg e9r8phgldfnvla;[A 49U FDJpaigh4 09dafoguer908a g[ ga09 aew0urg jf zheheh 0ew8hp98gRHG8HAUHAUHGAUISHGARW01:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but if you feel this source is not accurate enough, it is best that you find a replacement. While you are at it. Look for sources that suggest the victims were buried in cheap (toilet?) paper because the government did not want to waste wood resources on their coffins. Maybe you have better sources than all of us. Benjwong (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's not my responsibility to find more reliable sources. The person making those claims, or who has an interest in inserting them, should be finding reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnitude inconsistent?

I note that the Tangshan article shows the magnitude as 7.5, much less than 8.2, and about half as energetic I think as 7.8. I don't know enough to undertake a reconciliation here, but I guess somebody ought to look at it. Wwheaton (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

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) 21:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Zhu De died before or after?

The article lists Zhu De's death as following the earthquake, but didn't he die on July 6th, just before it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutologist (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Tientsin

The way I remember this event from 1976 had the North American media saying it had occurred in Tientsin, now Tianjin.
But Red China was quite remote in those days.
Varlaam (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Qinglong County

The section "The prepared: Qinglong County" needs some work. I hope someone who has read the cited sources will clean this up:

  1. "After voicing the concerns to Wang Chunqing (王春青), his county took the report very seriously." This should be rewritten to fix the misplaced modifier (as it reads now, it sounds like "his county" voiced the concerns to him and then took the report seriously. What part of "his county" took the report seriously should also be clarified -- does "his county" refer to the county government?
  2. "Up to 800 members of his county tried to respond." Again, what does "his county" refer to -- the county government?

Phlar (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Qinglong county 'preparation' likely fake

The current writing under The prepared: Qinglong County is problematic in two ways: 1)it conveys that if other counties did the same the tragedy would have be largely avoided 2) the narrative strongly suggests Ran Guangqi is a hero during earthquake but his actual deeds is not verifiable


Firstly, Qinglong is a county of qinghuangdao and is 130km northeast of Tangshan. The perceived shaking is significantly less than that of Tangshan, see https://www.britannica.com/event/Tangshan-earthquake-of-1976, Qinglong is in the 'Strong region'. While the exact death toll by counties is not available, since Beijing also from 'Strong' region did not suffer much from the earthquake we can believe the perceived shaking in Qinglong is not as strong as the current writing implies.

Secondly, the statistics 180,000 houses damaged is dubious for reasons I stated above. The source it cited is under a paywall but from my finding it's originally from an interview with Ran Guanqi. So if someone has access to that book can clear it up.

Thirdly, the narrative about Ran Guangqi and intentions is highly subjective and not suitable in Wikipedia. If Ran Guangqi told a reporter that he risked his political career and jailing term does it automatically made it truth? Or did he even did it?

Lastly there are reports in China that Qinglong residents that time didn't recognize receiving any prior warning about earthquake which contradicts the story here, which prompted my investigation.

All in all, the geographical location and perceived shaking should at least show the narrative about Qinglong is exaggerated, that's why I edited the paragraph to include the perceived shaking. Mjn693 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The only source you cited did not actually support your assertion that the geography and intensity of shaking imply that the story is fake. Absent reliable sources that ‘’explicitly’’ say so we have to go with what is there. I have read about this story in well-regarded books and see nothing to debunk it.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: The wording of the section header is likely "fake" (echoing this edit summary of 129.105.21.83). What Mjn693 said more precisely is that "the geographical location and perceived shaking should at least show the narrative about Qinglong is exaggerated" (emphasis added). That geographical location – specifically, geographical separation, or distance – could account for different levels of shaking I would consider to be WP:BLUE (though I could probably find a reference if you really need one). That Qinglong is at least 120 km from Tangshan is certainly "BLUE" to anyone that can read a map (but please advise if you have information to the contrary). From these it is a reasonable inference that damage in Qinglong was light for the simple reason that shaking was light, and we don't need explicit statements for that.

The current text clearly implies that the lack of deaths is due to the heroic actions of Ran Guangqi (based on a single, unverified source), totally ignoring that distance (and other factors) might be more likely explanations. This is the plain reading of the text: there is no any mention of other any possibilities. For that matter, where is the source text that explicitly says Ran Guangqi is a hero? You say you "have read about this story in well-regarded books and see nothing to debunk it", but I haven't, so I would be interested in seeing what you have. As to "nothing to debunk it", well, on one hand there are reasonable alternative explanations (e.g., distance), and on the other hand there are indications this text is part of a political struggle. Which is an interesting story I think should be included, but let's not confuse propaganda with actual realities. More on this in the next section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As I dig into this I have found that Tangshan was built on a large alluvial plain (which are especially susceptible to earthquake shaking), and with a very low level of "earthquake resistance", while Qinglong County is built mostly on bedrock. Qinglong and Beijing are both just outside the zone of level VII shaking (Chinese 12-step intensity scale), while Tangshan hit XI. The experience of Qinglong is more validly compared to Beijing, which (as far as I discovered) also suffered no loss of life. The so-called "miracle of Qinglong" seems more a result of a geology than good governance by the Communists or heroic action by Ran Guangqi. Lacking comparative figures from other counties there is no basis for considering Quinglong exceptional. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update (for anyone that might come along): there were early reports of 50 deaths in Beijing (see "Deaths"). I haven't looked up the relative populations of Beijing and Qinglong, but at least 50x seems reasonable. Which would make 50+ deaths in Beijing's population proportional to none (give or take one) in Qinglong.

The "180,000 houses damaged" is suspect in that the Chinese seem to have been counting rooms. In Yao 2002a (see article) it is said that "140,173 rooms were seriously damaged and 252,964 were slightly damaged" in Beijing and its suburbs. Which is quite comparative to the Qinglong figure, especially if allowance is made for different classes of bildings. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Early warnings and predictions" disputed

In the 1976_Tangshan_earthquake#Early_warnings_and_predictions section: the very notion of any kind of prediction of specific earthquakes is scientifically unsound and dubious, especially regarding claims that animals have "anticipated" any earthquake. (See Geller, 1997 and the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection 2011 report for summaries.) While many such claims have been made (even in the scientific press), they are inevitably anecdotal, and noted only after the fact, whereas scientific studies have found no such premonitory effects. The statement that Some animals, therefore, may have anticipated the earthquake is contrary to scientific consensus; it is an exceptional claim that requires multiple high-quality sources. However, the only source provided (Jennifer Rosenburg) has neither scientific standing nor any personal basis for stating that fish were jumping out of aquariums, etc. She appears to be echoing other sources, which are not cited here.

The second paragraph (about Wang Chengmin) is problematical in being based entirely on a collection of papers, but without specifying which paper and where (e.g., page number) each specific claim is supported, and therefore is effectively unverifiable. Even if precise support for these statements is provided, the claim is still very dubious: given such a prior, definite, documented statement anticipating "a significant earthquake between July 22, 1976 and August 5, 1976" and its subsequent fulfillment, it is quite incredible that no claim of prediction is evident. On the other, Geller says (p. 434) that this quake was not predicted, while Lomnitz & Lomnitz (1978) (who looked at the Chinese records) found no observed geophysical phenomena by which this quake could have been predicted.

The significance of this section is better understood in its earlier form, as seen in this edit from 2007 (and subsequent edits). This section was clearly part of a propaganda campaign against the supposed corruption of Communist Party officials. Which is an interesting story that might be included here, but does not actually show that any heroic action saved any lives, nor demonstrate any actual prediction.

For these reasons I am tagging the section as disputed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved (for lack of any other action, or even interest) by deletion of the questionable material. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposing change of citation style

The citations in this article are not only inadequate, the nature of some of the sources makes proper citation more challenging. As mixing the full citations in-line with the article text makes both harder to work with, I propose that the citation "style" here be modified to move the full citations (created with the cite/citation templates) into their own section, and use short-cites in-line to connect with them. I also suggest using the {{citation}} template (cs2 style) instead of the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. templates (cs1 style). Any objections? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There being no objection (and likely little interest) I will be proceeding as indicated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Concept and rationale for "Damage" section

For whatever interest it might be at some future date, here is my concept for the "Damage" section.

The Report on the Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976 is voluminous, especially in describing the damage, covering more topics than can be included in any reasonable sized article. I have chosen to, first, provide some feeling for the extent of damage, as well as its severity, in the three sections on the zones of shaking intensity. An isoseismal map would be most useful here, and I would add isoseismal lines to the OSM map in the article except that I haven't figured out how to get the proper base map.

Second, I have provided a little (in fact, quite minimal) information on damage to the coal mines (that being Tangshan's primary industry) as representative of all industry, and to the railways as a crucial element representative of all infrastructure. More examples could be added, but would bloat the article. I think these two are sufficient to illustrate the challenges, and their recovery. For those readers interested in more information on this the report is readily accessible.

This earthquake is notable for more than its damage and deaths, and eventually I'll add another couple of sections. That should make the article broad enough and deep enough. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of various points

@MarkH21: There are some points we need to discuss. As you have identified as novice editor, I wonder how familiar you are with various Wikipedia standards and guideline, and particularly with what we call the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", or WP:BRD. Basically, "bold" editing is encouraged, but is equally subject to reversion. At which point we try to resolve matters through discussion. Normally we expect the "B" editor to initiate the discussion, but as you seem to be new at this I will lead off.

Please note that I would very much appreciate some assistance with this article, especially from someone who can read Chinese. However, I have multiple objections to your recent edits. Not necessarily all of them, but near enough that I am going to revert them in mass. Please do not be disheartened by this, it just means we need sort through how to reconcile these.

Your edits were largely restoration of previous content. I particularly object to "Cultural references" as being just trivia, not adding anything to anyone's understanding of what this event was, or why it is notable.

I also object to your removal of the political aspects from the lead, as this event appears to have been very significant politically. On the other hand, I feel it is not necessary to put geological (as distinguished from seismological) detail in the lead, as that is better handled in its own section. In particular, the original sources for that material (Rosa 2007, and Stoltman et al. 2004) are not reliable sources for geological or seismological information; they are definitely out.

I also argue that "Predicted?" is a better section header than "Earthquake Prediction". That section is not about earthquake prediction as such, but addresses whether (as some claim) this earthquake was "predicted" (or not), and the consequences thereof.

There are other points we should discuss, but let's start with these. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Sure, I can address each of these points (which I will number for ease of reference in any later discussion): MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Which I am going to split into sub-sections. Modify or revert as you prefer. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cultural references" section

1. Regarding the "Cultural references", sure you may regard them as trivia but they are standard sections in Wikipedia articles on historical events. As mentioned in WP:POPCULTURE), they are standard valuable sections so I will add it back in now. Even if it does not add to anyone's understanding of what the event was, it connects the event to its explicit impact on culture. In this case, the earthquake was the main topic of a major commercial film and a novel that each have their own Wikipedia articles and that should merit their inclusion in the section. Of course, we can discuss whether specific mentions merit inclusion. MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my initial comments (above), I particularly object to the previous "Cultural references" section as being colleciton of trivia, none of which was shown to be notable in itself, nor adding anything to the article. You cite WP:POPCULTURE (WP:"In popular culture" content) to claim "they are standard valuable sections", but I find no mention there of "standard" or "valuable". (Whether they are actually valuable is debatable.) That they are fairly common I find unpersuasive.
What that essay does say is that such sections "should contain only properly sourced examples that are bona fide cultural references." Quite aside from any other strengths or weaknesses of the section you want to restore, it has no sources. That is a fatal flaw. But before you search for sources showing that "two characters in [a] novel" mention the quake, please note (at the top of "Content") that such sections should have sources that establish the significance of the event in (I believe this is implied) popular culture. If there are sources showing that this disaster had some significant impact on popular culture (I'm somewhat at a loss to think of what such impacts might be), perhaps comparable to the impact it had on the seismological community, then I would be all for it. But what that section had (quite typical of "popular culture" sections) is merely depictions (or mere mention) in popular media. There is no showing that either the event its self, or the mention or depiction of it, had any significance in popular culture. And without that it's just trivia.
That the quake/disaster was "the main topic of a major commercial film and a novel" might show the notability of the event, but does not show any impact on popular culture. Nor do I see any basis that these other topics merit inclusion here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of your points here and I do not find these sections to be that useful in most instances. However, I do think that if an event is the central subject of a major film or other mainstream media that it deserves a mention in the article. Firstly, it may be useful for readers as a cross-reference (e.g. if someone was reading about the event and wanted to see other content regarding the event, or if someone knew about the film but was unaware of the connection between the two). But perhaps more interestingly, documentaries and major films (even if they are not strictly based on a true story) tend to show the cultural impact of an event through societal perception of the event and its effects on communities.
In the case of this specific event, just as an example, the film Aftershock (2010 film) was a major commercial film based on the significant long-term effects of the earthquake on the families of survivors. Even though this is a fictionalized account, the event and its long-term effects are well-remembered in China and this film is just a demonstration of such. For anyone who learns about the event through this page that may be interested in how it lives on in modern Chinese cultural memory (and it does continue to have a place in modern Chinese culture today), they may find this quite a useful link. I do think that this can be a useful addition to the article.
Regarding sources, I agree with your assessment. But this debate seems to be about whether the section merits inclusion in the article, not the content that was there. The content can be improved and reliable sources can certainly be found because this was such a significant event in modern Chinese history! I can work on this, once we agree that such a section may merit inclusion. MarkH21 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I reject the premise that any "major film or other mainstream media" deserves a mention in the article simply because it is about the event. If anything – "media" or otherwise – has an impact on culture, then document what the impact is. That an earthquake/disaster is itself so significant that films (etc.) are made about it does not make the film notable.
There are plenty of instances where a film or book is very notable in how an event or topic is interpreted or framed (such as John Hersey's Hiroshima, The Manchurian Candidate, the Pentagon Papers, etc.) but such notability is based on independent sources, not by citing the work itself. However, it is rare for culture (something much deeper than passing public opinion) to be "impacted" by a single work. (Aside from the Bible and the Koran. Possibly Gone with the Wind?) If some work might give the reader a deeper insight into the topic, fine, add it to a "Recommended reading" list appended to the article. Gratuitous mention in an article of a film (etc.) that is neither relevant nor adds to the topic at hand, and particularly where no cultural impact has been shown, carries an odor of trying to inflate the perceived significance of the other topic.
I object to the previous content of the "Cultural references" section because none of the "references" were shown to be significant themselves, nor demonstrated a "cultural impact". I object to any "Cultural references" section as such because they are typically just cultural mentions, and that is just trivia. Don't say "Cultural references" if what you mean is really "Cultural impact". And if that is what you mean, then show what that impact is. If this event did change Chinese culture that would be good to cover, but "Cultural references" does do that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but I do think that whether it is "trivia" or not depends on the perspective of the reader. While I generally agree that these sections can err on the side of superfluous trivia, I have found it as a useful cross-reference section at times. Also, the notability of any such media should be already be justified in some other way as demanded by the existence of their Wikipedia pages (assuming the articles have already been vetted). There is no claim that they are notable because they are about this event, such a reference would link an already-notable film to an already-notable earthquake in this case. A detailed section on "Cultural impact" would indeed be valuable, but I do think that a less-involved "Cultural references" section still has some merit. Perhaps I could post a WP:3 request? I'm not sure either of our opinions may change with regards to this. MarkH21 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
"Opinions" (taken broadly) are typically changed by considering their bases or consequences. Regarding the non-inclusion of trivia, my opinion there has several bases, one of which is WP:NOT. Which I doubt you will be changing any time soon.
Alternately, you might convince me that what you want to "mention" is not trivia, or otherwise merits inclusion. But (as I said before) I reject your claim that (in your words) "if an event is the central subject of a major film or other mainstream media that it deserves a mention in the article." I particularly reject the idea that anything deserves a mention, unless unless it contributes in some way to the article, to the end of increasing the reader's understanding of the topic.
Though you say that you found "it" (trivia sections?) "a useful cross-reference section at times", you have not explained that or offered any possible examples. I point out that "cross-references" to an article are usually put into the "See also" section. But the nature of trivia – trifling things of no importance and little significance – is such that I would question the appropriateness of such a "cross-reference".
Finally, it seems to me that you may be confused about the notability a subject must have in order to have its own article, and the notability or significance something needs to warrant mention in an article on something else. These are independent. The notability of something itself is not the same as its notability (possibly zero) in relation to something else. It is the latter case that is pertinent here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Also to come back to this old debate, I still disagree but never took the time to return to the issue since there have been other more pertinent ones. There are several cultural reference sections that I have found useful. Just as an example, someone who is interested in the Iran_hostage_crisis may find the link to Argo (2012 film) a useful link in Iran_hostage_crisis#In_popular_culture - a major film whose main plotline revolves aroud on the historical event. Or perhaps all of the references given in 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#In_popular_culture may be useful if someone was looking for a documentary about the event. But anyways, I'll also add a WP:3 request for this. MarkH21 (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree that these sections of notable cultural influences are valuable, but I also agree that some of the entries looked a bit trivial. A notable film which is directly about the event, absolutely, that should be included. Because it has its own article, I feel that is enough to demonstrate notability. As for the others... it does not seem like the event is central to the plot of The Good Women of China or 6 Tanyin Alley. In the TV series Tribulations of Life it sounds like the event was of central discussion to one episode but not directly portrayed. And a mere mention in The Extinction Machine is probably trivial. Those which do not have their own articles should definitely be sourced. Those which are not chiefly about the event should have a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that the coverage of the earthquake was notable and not trivial. I would waive such requirements for the film which is directly about the event, but ideally I would want to see more about the film (this should be more than a See also section) and such expansion would require sourcing.

I'm having some trouble grappling with the objection that notable works of art are not part of "culture". A book does not have to be of the stature of the Bible to have had cultural influence. When matters are obvious – a notable film about the event – they do not have to be sourced. And no, we don't have to include everything as a part of summary style, but I would find it sorely lacking for a summary of the subject to not include mention of a major motion picture about the event. (If there are too many notable cultural references, you get spin-off articles like World War II in popular culture.)

I feel that the section could be put back in the article, and a reasonable amount of time permitted for proper sourcing. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide a third opinion and feedback! I agree that those entries are trivial and do not need to be included. I have reintroduced the section which, for the time being, contains the reference to Aftershock (2010 film). Hopefully, this can be populated over time with additional notable works. MarkH21 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
What needs to be considered is why this film (or any other "cultural" works) is notable. Earlier we invoked cultural impact. But we also need to keep in mind just what is doing the impacting: is the film documenting the impact of the quake? (Perhaps a change in architecture? A new genre of song that laments the dead?) Or (more likely) is the film having an impact on cultural memory or interpretation of the quake? I think either of these would warrant mention. Not because the film "gives a dramatic account", but because in doing so it is, in some way, having an impact. So what are these impacts? Where documented?
I can see mentioning the film, provided it is stated what the impacts are. My concern is that "Cultural references" will accumulate trivia of no significance to this topic. How about a different title? Perhaps "Cultural impacts"? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Political significance (in the lead)

This is effectively resolved, as the paragraph at issue has been rewritten to summarize the new "Political aspects" section, which covers the matter in more detail. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

2. Regarding the removal of the political mention, the traditional Chinese belief that "natural disasters are sometimes seen as precursors of dynastic change" is as written: this though relates to the Mandate of Heaven and dynastic cycles. Natural disasters did not hold the same traditional significance after the fall of the imperial system. Yes, the event had political significance which can be mentioned in its own section, but the implication of any role via traditional dynastic cycles does not belong in the lead. MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
If (?) your only objection to the paragraph in the lead about the political significance of this event was the last sentence ("In traditional Chinese thought..."), then there is a more approriate response: tag it. On checking the source I find it does not support that sentence. However, instead of just blowing it off, I will tag it for attention, in case someone does have a source for that. Of course, even with a source it might not belong in the lead, but without a source it will just be gone. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of this specific source, it is well-established that natural disasters were, in fact, viewed as precursors of dynastic change during the various imperial dynasties of China. I suppose you could even find relevant sources in the articles on dynastic cycle or Mandate of Heaven. However, I do not think that this belongs in the lead at all. Nor does the preceding sentence really belong if there is no significant discussion about it in the article itself, otherwise it is just a remark about the contemporary political situation in China. I am sure there is potential for a detailed analysis of the political implications but there currently isn't such a section so those two sentences don't really belong in the lead. MarkH21 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you on all that, including the possibility of a section on the political ramifications. (I have seen a few sources, and hints of more, but that's an area where I have little expertise, and somewhat less interest.) That paragraph is still in the lead because (1) that's what I inherited, and (2) I'm hoping it might catch the attention of someone interested in writing the corresponding section. I think this topic/article has potential for GA, at which point the material is supported or deleted, but I don't believe we need to be hasty on that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
While I think it would be nice to have such a section, I don't think that this paragraph should be in the lead until such a section has been written (if it ever is written). Since we don't know if such a section will be written or, even if it will eventually be written, when it would be written, I think that the paragraph is subject to deletion now. It doesn't make sense to me to leave a general remark and an irrelevant reference to imperial-era beliefs. MarkH21 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that this disaster had extremely significant political aspects, and therefore it is not merely "would be nice" to have such a section, but practically required. Leaving that paragraph in the lead for now — as a temporary measure, in lieu of a better location — informs the readers of an important (albeit as yet not covered) aspect of this event. And I am hoping that it might encourage writing that section. Alternatively, we could create that section, adding (for now) just that paragraph. Would that work for you?
Regarding your evident under-appreciation of the "omen-ous" character of this event, I did find two sources last night that apply. One (Yeoh 2010, though it looks like I won't have enough time today to add the full citation), says: "Traditional Chinese mystical beliefs see great natural calamities as omens of tumultuous dynastic changes", and then links it directly to Tangshan as part of the "Curse of 1976". The other source (Xiao 2013) says:
The death toll was not reported until three years after the earthquake (China.com, 2005). The main reason not to report was the fear of social instability, originating partly from the perception that the earthquake implied the CCP's losing of the mandate of heaven (Gries and Rosen, 2004).
I'll try to get those sources in tomorrow. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sources are in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I see the new changes, but I still do think that "dynastic change" is not the correct word choice here, as this is long after the era of dynasties in China. Even "change of government" may be better here. The new "Political aspects" section does look like a welcome addition though.
"Gods" may also be an incorrect term / poor translation here, as the Mandate of Heaven refers to Heaven moreso as the universe, order, and nature than as actual gods MarkH21 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
More likely a reflection of my inadequate understanding of the Chinese concept of "Heaven". Okay, I will write the gods out. Any suggestions?
I don't believe that "dynastic" is narrowly and precisely limited to dynasties, anymore than "palace coups" happen only in palaces. And I would reckon the Cultural Revolution to be more than an ordinary "change of government. But I'll take another look at that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made revisions. What do you think? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
They look pretty good! I've made a very minor revision for word ordering in one sentence but I am more comfortable with the wording on this subject now. MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Geological/seismological detail (in the lead)

3. Regarding the geological detail in the lead, sure there is a distinction of "geology" and "seismology" but the material that I had reintroduced to the lead mentions information about both. Nonetheless, I agree that it is better handled in its own section in detail, but I think that basic facts should be mentioned in the lead. The duration of the earthquake and fault / plates responsible for the earthquake merit inclusion in "a summary of its most important contents" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). I agree with you about those sources though. MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
On what basis do you reckon that the duration of the quake and fault involved "merit inclusion" in the lead?
It seems you have confused the duration of the earthquake with the more commonly reported duration of shaking. The former is significant in the calculation an earthquake's total energy release, but more of a technical parameter that is rarely (if ever) included an a Wikipedia article, while the latter tends to vary depending on the conditions at different localities, and rarely notable. I don't believe there is any report that the duration of the shaking at Tangshan was significant, which is a good reason why it does not merit inclusion in the geology section, let alone the lead.
In many cases earthquakes happen on well-known faults (or do not happen on a well-known fault, but on a lesser-known fault nearby), and in such cases I agree that warrants mention in the lead. But the Tangshan fault is so not known (outside of Tangshan!) mentioning it provides no further information. If you really want indicate the fault, fine, but do it in the place provided: in the Infobox.
As to the "plates responsible": sorry, it's not that simple. The major plates are not even close (i.e., south of the Himalayas and east of Japan), and there are so many smaller blocks of crust involved that it is questionable that such detail should be in the article at all, let alone trumpeted in the lead. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks! I am not very familiar with the details of this particularly earthquake. The previous description described it as being due to a 25-mile fault along the Amurian Plate and the Eurasian plate, so this seemed like a general enough description involving large-enough plates for a reader to glean a basic image of the tectonic forces underlying the event. If this is dispute, perhaps some less definite language may be used or perhaps, as you suggested, the Infobox could be sufficient. My background here is definitely not sufficient; I've only ever taken a singular graduate geophysics course and that was moreso focused on North America :) MarkH21 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't think there is much dispute on the geology (at least not at the level we need to be concerned about); I suspect the earlier statement was an overly broad paraphrase. Which was not cited, so there is little reason to stick with it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Predicted?" section, heading and details

4. Regarding the "Predicted?" section, I edited some of the wording because some parts of the section have an essay-like tone by asking questions within the text. Perhaps the header of the section should not be "Earthquake Prediction", but in any case it should not be a question as explicitly stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. As such, I will change the section header for now to avoid this immediate issue but we can discuss a new section header. MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to note, the above edits are no longer currently implemented. @J. Johnson:: What is your opinion regarding this? Both Questions posed in section headers and Socratic-method questions in the text are explicitly discouraged in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Regardless of what the final section header should be, do you see how it needs to be changed and how other questions asked in the text need to be removed? MarkH21 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I haven't fully considered all of this yet, but I'll layout my thinking on the first part. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
a) Heading in the form of a question
There is a bit of a dilemma here. As I see it, the subject of the (currently named) "Predicted?" section is whether the Tangshan earthquake was predicted. This is an important question because it is the premise of notable criticism of the government (in some quarters, of the Communist government), that it failed to warn the citizenry. (Assertion of prediction also has seismological implications.) The problem here is that the subject is inherently a question, and any heading that fails to indicate that incorrectly characterizes the subject. This bumps up against MOS:HEADINGS (Section headings) where it is stated that "a heading should ... Not be phrased as a question."
Simply recasting the heading into a declarative statement is not satisfactory. E.g., to say "Predicted" (or any thing else that resolves to that) is contradicted by what the seismologists say, and even the less assertive "Prediction" still implies both a prediction (questionable!), and a particular prediction. Inversely, to say there was not a prediction goes against several claims of predictions.
On the other hand (horn?), if this guideline of "not ... a question" prevents having a suitable heading, then we should ignore it. Recall the statement at the top of MOS:MAIN, that the MOS "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." And while the other guidelines at MOS:HEADINGS have good reasons (e.g., the technical complications of having images in a heading) I have found no discussion of why we should not have section headings in the form of a question. I have also checked several style guides (CMS, GPO, MLA, etc.) without finding any such directive. This presumed prohibition has no apparent justification, and therefore should give way when there is no satisfactory alternative heading. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I still firmly believe that it should not be in the form of a question, as it breaks with the style of every other article. I think that the reason for such a guideline is in the fact that Wikipedia gives a presentation of facts, rather than pose questions or serve as a forum of discussion (at least the articles themselves). Perhaps would "Possible prediction" or "Whether the earthquake was predicted" be suitable alternatives? The latter may a bit long and verbose... or "Claim of prediction"? MarkH21 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Comments coming, but I keep running out of time before I get here! Please note that I have opened a discussion at WT:Manual of Style#Why should section headings "Not be phrased as a question"? as to whether this "not" is absolute, or might allow an occasional exception. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, this discussion is interesting and I think that some of the other users have made good points and articulated what I attempted to describe above in my previous comments. MarkH21 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to update this subsection for other editors who may find this, since most of the subsequent discussion on this issue is actually in the next subsection. No conclusive answer to the general question on MOS:HEADINGS at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_208#Why_should_section_headings_"Not_be_phrased_as_a_question"? was reached, although the majority of respondees leaned against the question heading (but the general vs exception point was never really answered). So the debate concerning the specific heading "Predicted?" for this section is at the end of the following subsection. MarkH21 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
b) Questions in the section
I do still object to the first sentence of the section. The question definitely gives an essay-like tone and the article shouldn't be presented as an essay, discussion, or argument for interpretations. It can be slightly revised so it reads as statements of the opinions or arguments of experts who are implicitly considering such a question. MarkH21 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Presumably you're referring to "Was the Tangshan earthquake predicted?" I am not entirely pleased with it, either, though perhaps not for the same reasons. The problem is (in part) that "the opinions ... of experts" are clearly "not predicted", but do not address the reports showing the quake was anticipated, which some people have taken as clear, unequivocal predictions. A simple recitation of facts does not inform the reader where the bare facts are incomplete and even contradictory; there needs to be explanation. Suggestions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
We could have a section on "the reports showing the quake was anticipated, which some people have taken as clear, unequivocal predictions", followed by a brief mention about "the opinions ... of experts". A significant formulation of our own arguments about the interplay between the two beyond what is there at face value might not be entirely appropriate here. In the other discussion (WT:Manual of Style#Why should section headings "Not be phrased as a question"?), someone does make a similar suggestion to split the section up.
Also on a related note, I am slightly confused by the presence / purpose of the sentence "The complete lack of warning and hundred-fold greater death toll at Tangshan thus stood in stark contrast to Haicheng, demonstrating a failure of earthquake prediction, and undermining the claims based on it." in the "Political aspects" section. This explicitly states that the earthquake prediction was a failure, and this sentence is also not directly tied to the preceding sentence about the Communist Party's stance on saying that the earthquake was predicted. I've attempted to connect it to the preceding sentence slightly, but perhaps you could revise it according to your original purpose for the sentence. MarkH21 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Re your latter comment, I am a little bewildered as to what is confusing. (Perhaps I have studied this too much?) In the context of "Political aspects" there is a strong, multi-level contrast between the Hiacheng and Tangshan cases. Haicheng, with its short-term warning, precautionary measures, and low death toll, all supposedly arising from a successful prediction, was ballyhooed widely as a demonstration of the validity of Chinese methods and the superiority of the socialist system. Tangshan was the opposite of all that; it demonstrated a failure of Chinese methods, and thus undermined a key ideological tenet (the belief in earthquake prediction). Where you say "This explicitly states that the earthquake prediction was a failure": sorry, not so. Nor does "the preceding sentence" (or the quotation) make any statement "that the earthquake was predicted." The import of the ideological belief referred to is that the quake should have been predicted. And, implicitly, suitable responses then made. That suitable responses were not made suggests a failure of prediction, but note: that is not the only possible explanation. It is arguable that predictions of some sort were made, but that (e.g.) some bureaucrat suppressed them. About all that can be said definitely on this point is that there was no public short-term warning.
All of the forgoing is political. Whether there was any "prediction", in some sense of the word, "successful" or not, is a different matter. And a deeply nuanced matter. In the "Predicted?" section I have tried to show the reader why this isn't a simple "yes/no" question, and why some scientist's statement that an earthquake is coming does not always result in a public warning. Is all that clearer now?
Incidentally, I am moving the "further" link to Earthquake prediction back to the end of the section. It is not necessary, nor useful, to send the reader there as some kind of prerequisite. If the reader finds the issues touched on sufficiently interesting to read further, then we direct them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand the point being made here - that's not what I meant as confusing. My comment was about the wording and not the content. In particular, I was referring to the fact that the sentence literally says "demonstrating a failure of earthquake prediction". Naively, this can be construed as an assertion that somewhat contradicts the existence of the deeper discussion at hand.
Regarding the "further" link, I understand your reasoning but I was following the usual convention of having the "See also: ___" at the beginning of a section when "___" is a full article about a subject of which the section discusses an example or specialized case. Alternatively, one of the first sentences can simply link to Earthquake prediction, e.g. "the failure to predict". In any case I do find it strange to have a "further" link at the end of a section. I would even find it preferable to just place the link in the "See also" section at the end. MarkH21 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Why it should be strange have a "further" link at the end of a section? It seems quite appropriate to me: it is only after reading the section that the reader has some reason for exploring that topic more deeply (or not). But the "See also" section is too far away, especially as the connection to the fuller treatment of prediction arises out of this section only.
I am not certain if I follow your other comment. Of course there was a contradiction between the success at Haicheng, and the undeniable reality of a (presumed) failure at Tangshan. That is the whole point: the government had been saying "We're so good!", and reality said "Not so fast."
By the way, check my latest revision to the "mandate" paragraph. To judge by some of your earlier comments I wonder if you were doubtful of the effect of traditional belief post-Liberation. Multiple sources say that was still a factor, and Xiao (2013, p.80) says so specifically. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I revised the lead sentence to this section. Is that better? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I did so in my first round of edits. However, I also don't think that sections need summaries at the beginning. It should be self-evident that this is politically and seismologically significant. MarkH21 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it is not self-evident for most readers. Especially that there was any political aspect, as that is rather rare. The reader hopefully understands that after reading the section, but I think that sometimes they should be given a warning where the text is headed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:How about placing earthquake prediction as a piped link at the beginning of the section as I just edited? This feels slightly more natural than a “further information” at the end (there are tons of links one could put as further information!)

I was referring purely to the wording of the section. It still reads as making an argument going through the various points of view without making it overtly clear that these are stating these points of view, i.e. the reader has to infer this from the text. Also how does “Debate about prediction”, “Purported prediction”, “Issue of prediction”, or something in that flavor? MarkH21 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I have two objections to making the connection to "earthquake prediction" via a wiki-link, and at the beginning of the section. First (as I said before, just above), reading about earthquake prediction is not a prerequsite; is neither necessary, nor useful, to send the reader there before they have learned how that topic relates to the topic here. If they find the issues touched on sufficiently interesting to explore further, then we direct them "further". I don't know why you would think it "more natural" otherwise, but I think it is much more logical (natural?) to give the reader a taste before asking if they want seconds.
Your comment that "there are tons of links one could put as further information!" is not true. Even if you turned the whole section into a "sea of blue links" it would hardly be "a ton", and most of them would be utterly trivial. Which is my second objection: this entire section is about the intersection of the current topic with earthquake prediction. To hide that connection behind a single word, as if it was just another blue link (in a ton?), is inadequate, and makes the link harder to find when the reader does decide to explore further.
As to a better header: "Debate about prediction" (of the Tangshan quake) fails for simple reason that there was no such debate. (At least, not notable enough to be noted in any English-language source.) Similarly for "issue of prediction": what issue? The scientists (for the most part) say there was no prediction, and there is no interaction with those who say this person or that person predicted the earthquake. There could have been an issue about why there was no publicly announced warning (perhaps because there was no prediction? or a communications failure?), but, again, that didn't happen. (The government may have let it be known there was to be no "issue", but I haven't found anyone saying that.) "Purported prediction" is as good as I have heard yet, but I am still trying to warm up to it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not up to the authors of the articles to decide when the reader should look for related articles or to assume what they may find interesting and when. For instance, perhaps some readers may choose to decide for themselves whether they want to read about general earthquake prediction before reading about this specific instance. There have been many times when I, for example, open links at the beginning of a Wikipedia article or section in new tabs. Sometimes I read those newly-opened articles first and then come back to the original section, sometimes I finish the section first and then go on to read the newly-opened articles. It's entirely possible that many readers will come to this section with no idea of the immature science of earthquake prediction in general or the difference between earthquake prediction and earthquake forecasting. They may have a stronger interest in reading about the general attempted methods of earthquake prediction the issues specific to the Tangshan earthquake. Or perhaps may just want to read about them first before coming back to this article!
To that point though, I still feel that the section uses too many questions in the style of the Socratic method (MOS:SOCRATIC) and also uses a lot of words like "seems to be" and assertions of dubiousness that suggest there is some point-of-view here, in contrast to something like "scientists from blah blah wrote that this seems to be" or "blah blah finds this dubious". Maybe the tips in Wikipedia:EDITORIAL are relevant here. If you agree, I will be more than happy to make some edits to this effect and we can discuss any such revisions that you may disagree with (this should be easier than me suggesting each individual edit here).
Right, while most scientists agree that there was no prediction, there is this issue of whether the SSB "warned" of an impending earthquake, the issue of false alarms, and general lack of precautionary measures. Perhaps "Lack of precautions" could be a fitting section title? MarkH21 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If I get some time tonight (else perhaps not till Wednesday night) I will take a look that from a "too many questions" perspective.
I think "lack of precautions" is pretty much just an observation, with three branches: what those precautions might have been (hypothetical), the consequences of this lack (i.e., the damage; already covered), and why there was such a lack. "Why" can be taken as being, first and foremost, contingent on whether there was a valid prediction. Which, as demonstrated, is somewhat murky, and gets into how possible predictions should be assessed. I think the assessment process (leading into communication) is fascinating, and this particular instance would warrant thorough study. But, alas, it seems no one did that, so I see no way of approaching that except as an aspect of prediction.
There is an intriguing question of: why should the taking of precautions be contingent only on prediction/warning of an imminent earthquake? We know quakes are coming, even if we don't know exactly when, so why not start preparing? I.e., seismic risk mitigation, a.k.a. "resilience". And there is a source that says that since Tangshan "there has been diminishing confidence in prediction and increasing emphasis on seismic risk mitigation." That, and changes in the building code, amount to taking of precautions on a larger scale, which I am going to incorporate into an "Aftermath" section. As to why they weren't done before: I agree that a section on that would be quite fitting. Except for one little problem: the lack of any sources. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
So I settled in to take a deep, contemplative consideration of your objection that the "Predicted?" section has "too many questions", and what do I find? Exactly one question. (Not counting the header.) How is that "too many"? Are you simply against any questions? Or is that perhaps not actually what is bothering you?
There is the matter of "seems", and ... well, I wouldn't call those assertions – as in "a confident forceful statement of fact or belief" – of dubiousness. More a matter of indicating that the statement presented (e.g., "the principal factor ...") might not be absolutely certain. In the latter two cases because there is only a single source, and despite the source's definite assertion of alleged fact, I am not absolutely confident.
Incidentally I see that the paragraph of the first "seems" is lacking a source. I'll look for the source for that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


There were quite a few more questions before, but there are still the explicit questions "Whether the quake was predicted, or not, is a key question as to why Tangshan was unprepared" and "why did the much vaunted Chinese methods... fail to warn of this disaster?" as well as and the question implicit in "Why no action was taken is unclear". With regards to the last question, I removed it while still trying to preserve the logical flow of the two adjacent sentences. I feel like the first two may also be removed (and I think they should be removed) while preserving the spirit of them. See my latest revision and let me know what you think.
With regards to "seems", there are four throughout this section that are still suggesting some perception or point-of-view - perhaps not a strong assertion, but some kind of suggestion nonetheless. For example, the first one, as you mention, is without a source and makes it sound like the following text will support the author's own belief that the principal factor of this greater mortality is that "Tangshan was caught completely off-guard". As it stands, this is very much essay-like and not a collection of events, facts, and attributed beliefs of scientists or officials. I also don't see why the other two "seems" belong there. I've just removed them and the point is still the same. Even the "seemingly" in the parenthetical is tinged with an inherent distrust or suspicion of Chinese claims. It could just be stated that their methods were internally claimed to be successful but failed here, without adding further interpretation.
Also, while someone just removed the "?" from the "Predicted?" section title, I propose "Failure of prediction". That looks quite fitting of the subject matter. Thoughts? MarkH21 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The "?" change was a fly-by edit by an editor whose confidence of being correct precluded any need to check the extensive discussion here. However, "failure of prediction" is even worse, as it asserts – without sources! – both that there was a prediction, and it was a failure. There is scientific sourcing that there was, simply, no prediction, and something that didn't happen can't be said to have failed. (Or succeeded.) On the otherhand, the assertions of predictions (by single source, Bo, 2010), if accepted as valid, are successful predictions, not "failures", because there was, in fact, the event supposedly predicted. And I will be reverting that change directly.
Regarding your "seems" edits: why are you against the word? Replacing a simple, common word with one rather less familiar does not seem useful. Especially as there is a change of meaning. "Seems" refers impression or appearance, suggesting that something is less than certain, but without coloration of what is asserted. (Please note: not implying "inherent distrust or suspicion of Chinese claims.") "Purport" carries a sense of a false appearance, or even falseness in what is asserted. On the otherhand, if your objection is the "assertions of dubiousness", well, I would say they are dubious, regardless of which word is used. And I would say that is a fair (neutral pov) summation of the sources.
I'm still taking in your middle edit; more on that later. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I didn't think "Predicted" was any better a section title, in fact it sounds more awkward than any of the other suggestions. Ah okay, I see your point about "Failure of prediction". What I meant by this proposal is about the failure to predict the earthquake, not that there was a failed prediction. "Failure of prediction" is ambiguous as to whether there was a particular failed prediction or a failure of earthquake prediction.
Regarding "seems", its usage is still tied to the author's own summation of the sources. This still constitutes WP:NOR, or more precisely, Wikipedia:SYNTH. Particularly since there is a source (even if a solitary one) that claims that there was a prediction. Then the summation is implying that that source is less reliable than the ones supporting the opposite point of view. Regardless of whether that is true, a more neutral phrasing would be to the effect of "There is one source, Bo 2010, that claims that there was a prediction.... However other sources X, Y, Z contradict that statement and say that there was no prediction...." The reader can make their own judgment as to whether the singular source, Chinese claims, or whatever are dubious, reliable, or anything else. "Seems" does refer to an impression or appearance, but that is inherently subjective and while you or 90% of others may have the impression that some claim is dubious, at the very least the origin of the claim would have an opposing view! These particular examples do seem dubious to me, but I think we still need to write it without saying so. MarkH21 (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Still contemplating. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As to "author's own summation of the sources" (I presume you mean editor's summation), I don't agree that is WP:OR. In the first place, the "research" prohibited is not our "research" into the literature, but first-time publication of material never before known. In the second place, summarizng sources – as well evaluating them – is precisely what we should be doing. To present a neutral statement of the mainstream view pretty much requires reviewing ("researching") more source material than is suitable for inclusion in an article. Simply counting the sources for or against some definite proposition is quite unacceptable because 1) sources are not equal in their authority, and 2) issues are often not a simple, well-defined up-or-down matter.
The case here is a good example. The geoscientists – at least in the English-language literature – are nearly unanimous: "not predicted". (And even "famously" not predicted.) The one source here that states (not the same as claims!) a prediction is Bo. Who is a highly respected scholar, but not a seismologist. The prime significance of this is not that he is any less reliable or less expert in doing his work than the scientists are at theirs, but that he is not using "predict" in the same, restricted way that geoscientists use it. To make this even more complicated, it seems (i.e.: or so I am informed) that the Chinese use the same word – "yubao" – for both "prediction" and "forecast". Wang & Chen (2006) state that "on most occasions the word is better understood to be forecast", but don't explicitly explain the ramifications of this.
I could go on with this example (yes, it gets deeper), but the bottom line is, first, that this apparent contradiction of Bo's "yes" versus the "no" of the seismologists may be more about differing definitions. (Ha: like not catching the difference between "rice" and "lice". Makee big time joke with round-eyes.) Second, not understanding such matters and making allowances for them leads to egregious blunders. (Like the one I saw many years ago, that "George Washington was inconsistent, sometimes stating he was born on the 11th of February, other times on the 22nd.") And possibly a third point: it is infeasible to explain all that in the text, wherefore one strives for words that avoid presenting these in a false perspective (pov) of apparent equality.
This notion that we can simply "present the facts", and "[t]he reader can make their own judgment" is ludicrous, because the amount of information (which is very seldom in the form of "facts") needed to avoid a skewed judgment is more than can be fit into an article. That is why editors have to summarize.
Your first point is correct: the broader issue is not the failure of a particular prediction, but why there was a general lack of prediction. But here we run into ambiguities again: it could be argued that there was "prediction", the real problem being a bureaucratic failure to follow-up and issue a warning. Which would be interesting to get into, if only we could; there is a paucity of English-language sources. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
By the way: incidental to our discussion here, I have added footnotes with more explanation of the text. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Stating the arguments and assertions of the actual authors / scientists is not just "counting the sources", but a holistic summary of the scientific literature and what different groups in the scientific community think. There is a difference between summarizing sources and evaluating their reliability directly as editors (and yes, I did mean "editor's summation" instead of "author's summation"). Just to clarify, I am not disagreeing with your evaluation of the sources or the subtlety of the actual content here, but this is purely an issue regarding style.
On a more general editing note, you just manually reverted my edits regarding the Socratic questioning of this section which is not the discussion of the previous point and I haven't seen you comment on those changes. But since it has now been over two months and our disagreements have not been resolved through discussion, I'll make a WP:3 request for a third opinion. This isn't meant to be hostile or anything, but hopefully it will resolve our disagreements in the sense that something may be decided. After all, this is the seventh (at least 7: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) time that you have reverted my contributions. I really don't feel like making any further contribution with this continuing as it is, and while I do appreciate and recognize your continued valuable contribution to this particular article (at least 200 in the last 4 months!), it feels like ownership. MarkH21 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, it is true that 预报 means both forecast and prediction when used colloquially. However, I personally do not know how Bo may have used it in his original text as I have not taken a look at it. For this content issue though, I still think that it would be better to just state something to the effect of what you said. Yes, there may be deeper issues and interesting questions about how Bo's statements really fit into the whole picture. But the Wikipedia article text isn't the place for the editor to make any analysis or drawn conclusions. That is the place of academia and publication, to which the article should refer and of which the article should summarize. To reiterate, the emphasis here is for us to summarize the content of the articles and not so much summarize their place in the academic discussion. An analysis of the latter lies within the realm of academic or journalistic publication. MarkH21 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Predicted?" section continuation

3O Response: Technically, this does not qualify for 3O as opinions have already been sought and received at MOS:TALK. Because you've already heard opinions from several editors (10 by my count), one more opinion isn't likely to make much difference (or so the theory goes). My read of that discussion is that the editors generally agree that questions should be avoided in section headers but some could see instances where there could be exceptions – which follows the basic statement in the box at the top of the MOS.

I'm going to add to the discussion the neglected fact that visually impaired readers rely on section headers and the TOC to navigate articles. Depending on the platform used, a question mark could be confusing.

I'm going to suggest that the section heading be retitled: Predicted? → Question of prediction. This would make it a statement while preserving the intent of the question mark.

Part 2 whether the section content may include Socratic-style questioning. It may, but it shouldn't. I follow eventualism: articles don't have to be perfect from the start and can be continually improved to address issues. Articles are seldom fully MOS-compliant and that's okay. If another editor can rewrite the material to better follow the guidelines, that change should generally be accepted. Passages like why did the much vaunted Chinese methods [...] fail to warn of this disaster? are not good encyclopedic tone, and shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. If you could preface it with inline attribution of 'source A questioned' that'd be better but I'd tend to rephrase it.

Part 3 [Can] the article editors directly evaluate the reliability of sources? My guess is that you can but haven't been able to if this has been ongoing for 3 months. I'd suggest calling an RfC, with a note to the related WikiProjects where editors may be familiar with sources.

If/when the article is stable in terms of content and sources, you may wish to list it at WP:GOCER for copy edit, where a neutral editor can tackle the tone issues in the section. I hope this helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks also for your attention here to these issues. Apologies for the unqualified 3O request, I meant the request to pertain specifically to the section for this article which I saw as being different in scope than the MOS-talk question which seemed to reflect more general principles. In particular, I believe that J. Johnson (JJ) was arguing that this specific section could be an exception.
Regarding parts 1 & 2, I've now changed the section heading to the suggested "Question of prediction", which I agree adequately captures the intent of the original title, as well as made a few tone revisions. Thank you for the suggestions though. Indeed, RfC and WP:GOCER may be useful tools for this article in the near future. MarkH21 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Mark: My most recent edits were prompted by specific reasons, which we can discuss in detail if you wish. This discussion has been protracted in part because we both respond more deliberatively than as stream-of-consciousness; which I think is good. I am also some distracted by RL issues and other work, so am fine with a relaxed pace.
Please note that I appreciate your comments even where I don't initially agree with them because, first, I recognize my work is not perfect, and could use refinement and/or explication. Second, even where I am pretty confident I am "right" I am fine with having to "show my work" (reasoning), as it were.
I am not perfectly satisfied with "Question of prediction", but I think it's the best we have come up with. However, I think the text needs to specify what that question is and why it is signficiant: "Whether the quake was predicted, or not, is a key question as to why Tangshan was unprepared." If we are not explicit about that we are just dancing about the key issue of why there was no warning.
Which prompts me to ask: have you seen that film? Does it get into any of these issues?
In regards of this edit, where you removed "entirely": Tangshan was not merely "unprepared". It was, as the source says, entirely unprepared. Removing that is editorial softening of what the source says. Also, many cities are "unprepared", the difference with Tangshan being it was caught unprepared. This is not just my gloss on the matter: it is emphasized in the Overview to "The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976", and again in the Preface to Volume One. The latter explicitly calls out cities and countries that are potential "candidates for an earthquake disaster." Tangshan's unpreparedness was notable because it became an actual disaster.
I added "mostly" – and parenthetically. as jamming "mostly entirely" together is nonsenesical, and not what the following source says – because another source shows there was some preparedness, belying the "entirely". We could qualify "entirely unprepared" with "the population and civil administration of Tangshan". a fair rendering of what the source says, and undoubtedly meant. An editorial emendation which I think is reaonable, but I recongnize your objection. So what would you propose?
I mentioned the ambiguity of "yubao" as a further complication. The issue with Bo's use of "predict" is that he uses it in a general, unqualified sense, not the more restricted sense that geoscientists have found necessary. What appears to be a prediction from his point-of-view is not neceessarily (probably not at all) a prediction from a scientific pov. I don't want to burden the text with an explanation of that (perhaps in a note?), which is why I qualify the statement of prediction with "seems": it avoids making ("in Wikipedia voice") a definite statement that, from a scientific pov, would be false. "Seems" or "appears" are not disparagements nor assertions of dubiousness, and certainly not, as you stated earlier, implying ""inherent distrust or suspicion of Chinese claims", but qualifications of accuracy; not "Socratic", but scientific precision.
I think that covers most of the points raised. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Geology" section

For consideration: where should the "Geology" section go? I allow that there is some sense in putting it at the top (as you did, and as I have done in other cases), on the basis that explaining the geology is a prerequisite for explaining the earthquake.

But consider: as the most technical topic it is also the most boring. While geo-junkies (such as myself) may want to go straight to "most interesting" (to us) part, it is more likely that most of the readers here will be more interested in the damage, the fatalities, the recovery efforts, or even the political aspects than the geology. I suspect these readers will lose interest if they hit Geology first. I suggest we should show the impacts, and why this event is so notable, prior to explaining how this disaster came about. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Other comments

Since there is no dispute over the relatively minor edits in the revision [1], I'll reinstate those now. MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I also just want to point out that "bold" editing is not equally subject to reversion. WP:BRD explicitly states that it does not encourage reverting and points to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Here, points 2 and 3 of "Bad reasons to revert" are applicable:
  • Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text.
  • Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.
Do note that I agree that I should have moved to the talk pages first and I do appreciate the discussion! MarkH21 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your last two edits (restoring "Cultural references" and your renaming and revision of "Predicted?") because I consider those issues (as well as others) as yet unresolved, and I will ask you to refrain from edit-warring until we while we discuss them. Something came up today so that I was not able to give your comments full and proper consideration; I will try to do that tonight. I trust that none of these issues are so grievous as to require immediate remediation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


If you have not yet fully considered them, then do not revert them. That’s not proper Wikipedia etiquette. Again, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. MarkH21 (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
As it appears you are an experienced editor it seems I need not have been so tender in my opening comments. And you certainly understand that WP:Revert only when necessary is only an essay, being "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors", not policy or guideline, and possibly a minority view. You may also realize that the occasional assertion of not only a right to edit, but also a right have them retained, tends to be highly controversial, and I hope we don't have to go there. I am inclined towards BRD, which, though also neither a policy nor a guideline, is a broadly accepted standard.
What I have not fully considered is your arguments for your edits, which I am still considering. (I am being distracted by other stuff.)
To facilitate discussion of the several points I propose to split this discussion into subsections. Which I will boldly do so in my next edit. I will take no offense if you modify or even revert that edit. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Right, all I am pointing out is that BRD explicitly does not encourage reverts, in contradiction to your initial claim and seemingly heavy use of reverts. Regardless, my main grievance with your conduct is that you have used reverts even though you have not yet considered the reasoning. Then I hope it is clear how this may be off-putting; you are asserting that your version has precedence before considering another editor's edits. An editor should not maintain firm precedence of their own edits without considering the other edits. Only after giving full consideration can any revert be justified.
Of course, this does not actually have any effect on the content dispute and I will wait for your opinions on the above points. I hope you understand how this revert-before-consideration behavior is off-putting though and can even be interpreted as arrogant if generously applied (although I do not feel that way in your case). MarkH21 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Funny thing: my point of view is that, not being mind-reader, I can't consider your reasoning until you have provided it. And your edit summaries (for the most part) only described what you were doing, not why. As it is, I did not revert without consideration, I simply did not have the benefit of your reasons. If you want me to consider-before-reverting (referring to your reasoning) then I would suggest that you explain-before-editing. BRD requires neither, and editing without explanation can also be interpreted as arrogant. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Here, I am referring to the last two reverts (of restoring "Cultural references" and the renaming and revision of "Predicted?") which followed my explanation in this talk section and in regards to which you admitted that you have not yet had time to consider the arguments; they aren't in reference to the first one. MarkH21 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


  • By the way, thanks for your edits on the place names. I am definitely weak on the administrative divisions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No problem. It actually took me a while to figure out where Tuozitou is because it appears to be a tiny village with few mentions outside of this railway line... MarkH21 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Why, I would have thought it simple: just govern these ventages... (whoops, that's Hamlet). Ah, just follow the Tongxian–Tuozitou rail line to its terminus. So taking advantage of my copious free time (ha) I dallied with Google Maps. I did find the "Anhui Taihe Traditional Noodle" (sounds yummy), but seem to have overlooked Tuozitou. Maybe they are shy, self-effacing folks? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Qinglong miracle??

Something we haven't gotten to yet: the supposed "miracle" in Qinglong County. Double question mark here: is it real? should it be included? Though there are many references in certain quarters to this alleged miracle, the underlying basis is quite narrow (mainly the work of Prof. Jeanne–Marie Col, based on researches in 1991-1995), and has some very noticable weaknesses.

There is one lead I would be interested in checking. One Peng Funan, in an article in Engineering Sciences, makes the same claim, citing (see footnote 14) an article, "A really historical story was not known to the public", in the Qian Jiang Evening Paper for 1991-10-3. Unfortunately it is in Chinese. Any chance you might be able to find that story? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Any chance you might be able to help with this? I am undecided whether this alleged miracle is even notable (it's been ballyhooed in various places, but the underlying documentation is thin and suspect), so could use some discussion. And it looks like some key sources are in Chinese. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1976_Tangshan_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=875112978"