Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake

Template:Vital article

("C" on the map)

Perhaps my preferences aren't set correctly, but I see no map with any points labeled (not "C", as indicated in the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of "The Earthquake" section, nor "A" or "B" either, as noted in the infobox, as well as in later sections), other than in the infobox, where only the epicenter is marked. - Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I'm getting a Syntax Error for the map in question (under the next section, "Damage", titled, "Extent of significant shaking"). I've tried enabling and disabling various gadget and beta preferences with no luck. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the formatting of infoboxes well enough to perceive if there's a problem with the source. - Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Curious. The "map in question" is, of course, the one displayed — or should be displayed! — in the "Damage" section, not the location map in the infobox. Perhaps the text should be clearer about that. At any rate, I believe the problem you are seeing (or in not seeing?) has nothing to do with the infobox. The map of concern, titled "Extent of significant shaking", is displaying properly for me, with the points "A", "B", and "C" displayed next to the red triangles. So it's not a gross problem, and we will need to do some careful trouble-shooting to figure this out. Please provide the following information:

Q1: do you see any map, or even just a box, in the "Damage" section?

Q2: What is this "Syntax error" you see? (Exact & complete wording, please.) I presume it shows up in the text; right?

Please go to my test area. In the "small test" section: Q3: do you see two maps, one of Tangshan, and one that is mostly blank? Q4: Do you catch any error messages?

In my "Bigger test" section: Q5: do you see the "Tangshan earthquake" map? Q6: Do you see the diamonds? Q7: Any errors?

And in the "OSM overlay tests" section: Q8: Do you see three maps? Q9: Any errors?

(Feel free to interpolate your answers.)

There could also be a browser problem; you should check this with any other browsers you have available. Also try accessing the map without logging in; that should eliminate any problems with your personal configuration. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rusty Lugnuts: awaiting your response. The problem you have seen may be connected with a deeper level bug that is being investigated, and the difference where you encounter this problem and I don't may be a useful datum. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I do see the labels on Windows desktop Chrome Version 72.0.3626.96. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Troubleshooting a bug requires having some knowledge of the effects of the bug, particularly the error message encountered. At any rate, I suspect what the problem is: two software packages out of sync. Not an issue specific to the map at hand, or addressable here. Though I might tweak the text so that readers having this problem will understand that the reference to "C" is on the map they don't "see". :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that the map also doesn’t appear on many mobile devices. Moving the letter labels to the caption may be the best option. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "moving the letter labels to the caption"? They identify elements on the map by their adjacency; putting them into the caption (where they already are) destroys that.

I suspect that the problem of the map not appearing arises from a problem with PHP-7. If you have a mobile device (any device?) where you can disable PHP-7 that would be a good test. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to a tip from RobinLeicester I can get something that looks like broken OSM maps. @Rusty Lugnuts: does clicking on 'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tangshan_earthquake#Damage' show the same problem you saw before? What I see from that link is the basemap (without the overlaid annotations) at the upper-right, and a blank box (presumably where the overlay data is/isn't) a little lower on the left. Is that what you see? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Various edits coming up (Feb. 2019)

@MarkH21: Just letting you know I am about to do some extended editing. I would like to point out that your edit (13 Feb.), replacing "complete lack of warning" with "failure to predict" (without explanation) evinces an identity that does not apply here. For sure, the concepts are closely coupled, and often the difference is immaterial. But as explained (perhaps inadequately?) in the "Question of prediction" section: whether there was, or was not, a prediction is questionable. What is not questionable is that there was no public warning, and therefore, in contrast to Haicheng, no preparation. Also, in several cases where you have removed text I would suggest that templating (such as with {{cn}} or {{or}}) would be more appropriate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but again I am just trying to remove some of the interpretive tone that is present or at least suggested by some of the wording here. In particular, there are some instances of WP:ALLEGED and WP:EDITORIAL here (e.g. "fortunate") that can easily be avoided. In my second-most-recent edit, the "palpable failure" sentence seemed particularly egregious since it was unsourced at the time. But even now, the "Tangshan was not so fortunate" sentence is unnecessary here. Of course the reader can infer what they want from the objective explicit contrast, rather than have the subjective opinion on whether something is "fortunate". — MarkH21 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

In your zeal to de-editorialize do you actually check the sources given? (Well, usually given!) Or are you just flying by a gut-feeling? (I don't mean to sound snide; it's genuine question. I have seen quite a few editors that seem to be running primarily on WP:IDLI.)

Perhaps you have in mind this text from WP:EDITORIALIZING:

Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

So is your objection to "Tangshan was not so fortunate" — that it is unnecessary — because this is clearly and obviously true? I think that is presuming upon "the reader's knowledge and perspective". Alternately, perhaps you are thinking this is Wikipedia taking a view? Sorry, no, that is the source (Kerr, 1979), which says: "The city of Tangshan had not been so fortunate....". (If the text was any closer quotation marks would be needed.) And in this source and others there is an explicit contrast with Haicheng, and mention of specific points (such as lack of precursors, and time of day) where Haicheng was fortunate, and Tangshan was not. As to being subjective — I presume you mean in the sense of opinions arising from one's own personal feelings, distinguished from opinions based on sensible, external reality, without distortion from personal feeling — well, the objective explicit reality is: the factors in why Tangshan got crushed a lot worse than Haicheng all seem to be fortuitous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For de-editorializing, it's both. But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article. The well-established position in MOS is:

Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

So an article should not read "___ was fortunate". It would be acceptable with respect to this position that an article may something like "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate in his/her analysis of ___". However, in this (and many other) cases such a statement is unimportant and doe not need to be included in an article.

I think it is perfectly acceptable (and preferable here) to just have what is already given: 2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 M_s earthquake at Haicheng. 242,419 people died at the similarly-sized earthquake at Tangshan. The (lack of) precursors and time of day contributed to the low death toll at Haicheng and the high death toll at Tangshan. One doesn't need to state that Kerr thinks that Tangshan was not as fortunate as Haicheng.

As to why the MOS explicitly takes the position that articles should not take a position on fortune, it's really a subjective opinion whether something was "fortuitous" or not. Some silly "examples": Some would consider Trump's election fortuitous. Some would not. Some would consider Tangshan's suffering as unfortunate. Some would consider it a result of poor construction techniques and planning. There's no objectivity in fortune and results of probability. If one objects, then the appropriate venue is the MOS talk! — MarkH21 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The MOS "Editorializing" section comes under "Words that may introduce bias", and I see no instance of any words being absolutely forbidden. As to Wikipedia "not taking a view" re "fortunate", well, I do not see that reporting an attributed characterization is "taking a view". Nor do I see that absolutely forbidding "fortunate" is a "well-established position in MOS". Indeed, I have yet to find any discussion of that in the archives. As to rigid avoidance of "fortunately", the only discussion of this I have found in the MOS archives is here, where the statement at the top of the MOS was reiterated: "The advice in this guideline ... should not be applied rigidly." [Emphasis in the original.] There was also discussion of why "words to avoid" was changed to "words to watch", with mention of some editors taking this to mean "remove on sight".

I dispute your opinion that "fortuitous" is "really a subjective opinion". It refers to things or events "happening by accident or chance". And, to take time of day as an example, there is no reason known (or even suspected) why the Tangshan earthquake happened at 4 AM and not (say) 4 PM; that was purely and objectively by chance, there is no subjectivity to it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding about my objection. I am not saying that the word is forbidden, but that the attribution should be clear if the word is included, i.e. "___ thinks that ___ was fortunate" (or something more graceful), rather than a statement that "___ was fortunate". The former is different from the latter with a ref tag afterwards. I'm not saying that the occurrence of an event with unknown reasons is subjective. What I'm saying is that the position that something was fortunate is subjective. Saying that something is fortunate or fortuitous implies the position that it was "good" or "bad" that something happened. I personally agree that it was "bad" that many people (including my friends' relatives) lost their lives at Tangshan, but I don't think that it should be states as "bad" on Wikipedia. The earthquake happened and some factors led to more people dying. There's no need to state whether it or the relevant factors were good or bad fortune. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you were quite clear, with little room for misunderstanding: "But even if a source is given and states the exact words "___ was fortunate", that does not mean that it should be included in an article." Also citing the MOS ("Wikipedia should not take a view ..."), for: "So an article should not read[your italics]"___ was fortunate"." That sure sounds like "forbidden". But perhaps today we agree that "fortunate" is not forbidden.

I disagree that "fortunate" should be attributed in the text ("__ thinks that"). We do that when there is a dispute, or when it might be of interest to the reader. But lacking any contention of the fact I see no reason why the usual attribution in a note is not sufficient.

I agree that "fortunate" is often used with a strong tone of "good" or "bad", which certainly have subjective elements. But! There is no "position" taken here that 242K deaths (or any other aspect) was "bad". This is about the contrast between Haicheng vs. Tangshan (e.g., few deaths versus many deaths). That is: Tangshan was not so fortunate as Haicheng (would "not as fortunate" be better?), for what are very similar earthquakes in very similar contexts. The point is not that Tangshan's "fortune" (destiny) that day was "bad" (by some subjective criterion), but that it was "less fortunate" than Haicheng's, and that some of the "relevant factors" were entirely fortuitous. Which, by the way, does NOT imply goodness or badness (in the way that "lucky" has come to imply good luck); it means only happening by chance. Again: hat sentence does not say that Tangshan was unfortunate, only that it was less fortunate than Haicheng. And this was to a degree so extreme as to be significant and notable in its own right (and thus should be mentioned), and leads into why the supposed "failure to predict/warn" was so serious. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's more than just often... it's the explicit definition in most definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Cambridge Dictionary)! Similarly for "fortuitous" which has "fortunate" and "lucky" strongly associated and included in many definitions (e.g. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary) Even if that is not the intended usage here, it does have that connotation for many readers. Yes, it's not really so bad if we use "fortunate" here but the contrast can easily be drawn without using words carrying an implicit "goodness". What I wrote above works as a bare example:

2,046 people died as a result of the 7.5 M_s earthquake at Haicheng. 242,419 people died at the similarly-sized earthquake at Tangshan. The (lack of) precursors and time of day contributed to the low death toll at Haicheng and the high death toll at Tangshan. One doesn't need to state that Kerr thinks that Tangshan was not as fortunate as Haicheng.

The inclusion of the sentence "Tangshan was not so fortunate." is unnecessary. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Source for official death toll

@MarkH21: At one point I found what appeared to be the official (CEA) death toll (here) but it's gone away. (Yeah, I should have archived it. Dang.) Given your command of Chinese, could you search for a replacement? Or even (a long shot) do you suppose we could ask them to restore that page? Incidentally, the missing page had this notation: "International Networking Unit Record No. 京ICP备06029777". But that seems to be worthless. Googling on that last part plus "唐山" turns up some hits, but they're all 404. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I can look for sources later, but at the very least here's an archive [1] of that website :) — MarkH21 (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see the "242769" figure there, which supports our use, and is likely good enough to quell any objections. Though it would be good to have an official source that is still current. What do the Chinese language wikipedias cite? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia cites 1 (a 1982 academic book published by zh:地震出版社, a publishing house sponsored by the State Seismological Bureau) for giving 242,769 deaths and 164,851 serious injuries and 2 (1988 academic book published by a now-Elsevier-subsidiary by members of the National Seismological Bureau of China) for 242,419 deaths.

1) 林泉. 地球的震撼. 中国地震出版社. 1982. (Lin Quan. The Earth's Shock. China Earthquake Publishing House / China Earthquake Press / China Seismological Publishing House / China Seismological Press. 1982.)

2) Chen, Yong; Tsoi, Kam-Ling; Chen, Feibi; Gao, Zhenhuan; Zou, Qijia; Chen, Zhangli, eds. (1988), The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976: An Anatomy of Disaster, Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 153, ISBN 978-0080348759, LCCN 88005916.

Hope that helps. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is great. (Double-plus good!) I know of the second book, but have never seen a copy, so I couldn't verify it. For the first book, could you provide a page number for the 242,769 figure?

While these books are good (authoritative, and even officially blessed), I think we still need to find an official source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking further at the discussion in the Chinese Wikipedia article, the official number of victims is 242,419 according to Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC ([2]). Interestingly, this news article also mentions that the public memorial has 246,245 names on it due to some recent additions and revisions in 1992, 2008, and 2010. Nonetheless, 242,419 remains the official number. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Not as clearly and cleanly "official" as I'd like it to be, but that is problem with the Chinese government. (And my inability to read Chinese?) I'll see about working these in, and hopefully that will suffice to cover the matter. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of this as a citation of that first book:

• 林 [Lin], 泉 [Quan] (1982), 地球的震撼 [The Earth's Shock] (in Chinese), Beijing, China: 中国地震出版社 [Seismological Press].

I am presuming "Lin" is the surname--is that correct? For publisher you gave four terms (or is that two pairs of "Publishing House/Press"?); is there a preferred form here? I tried googling the title with "isbn", but the results seemed to be trash. Am I correct in presuming that books published in China also use ISBNs? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Lin is the surname. I gave four different English names for the publisher that I found in different references online. The publisher's website ([3]) gives their English name as "Seismological Press" when omitting China from the Chinese name. So the official English name should be "China Seismological Press". Yep, China uses ISBNs as well. It seems to be 978-7116460933 or 978-7477148487 according to second-hand book sales listings ([4], [5]) which are not exactly reliable... I couldn't verify that these are correct ISBNs via an ISBN lookup. The book is less than $5 USD if you want it though :) Of course it'll be entirely in Chinese. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that occurred to me. :-0

I see that both of your links seem to link to the book. But for both ISBNs the template complains of a checksum error. I suspect "jd.com" is a bit casual about copying data from the original publisher. Well, ISBN would be nice, but not absolutely necessary. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, JD.com is like Chinese combination of Amazon + eBay. This book might not have an ISBN: China issued ISBNs beginning in 1987. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured out last night that my question should have been whether China used ISBNs in 1982. Searching www.seismologicalpress.com turned up some interesting stuff, but it didn't look anything to do with the book. So I have tweaked the citation, and will run with that. Thanks for your assistance. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Given that the official figure is actually 242,419 (and it originates from a more recent study), I'll also add the Xinhua and 1988 book references and change the IB entry. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:I made a few edits regarding the death toll that you may want to review. I basically changed the infobox entry to reflect the official figure (at least what was more recently reported by official media), made two subsections since two thirds of the section is about reports immediately following the earthquake and one third is about the later government-reported figures, removed two minor unattributed claims, and replaced boldfaced figures with emphasis (per MOS:NOBOLD). — MarkH21 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, the more I consider it, breaking out "Official figures" seems to be a good idea. Do keep in mind that a while a study might be authoritative (in the sense of strong basis for accepting its results), an official number is not necessarily most authoritative, nor even most accurate; "official" means the number published ("blessed") by the official authorities (usually the government). And it is a big difference between citing an official report directly, and citing what others say the officials said. (But perhaps the best we can do in this case.)

A preliminary review: the "citation style" of this article is to use {{citation}} templates (CS1 style), not the {{cite xxx}} family (CS2 style). Where a {cite} template is used (sometimes there is no CS1 equivalent) the |mode=cs2 parameter should be included. Also, the cite/citation templates create full citations, which should be in the Sources section; the in-line citation should be a short-cite. News agencies are a little tricky; I suggest something like {{Harvnb|Xinhua|2019}} for the short-cite, and adding |ref=CITEREFXinhua2019 ("name" and year concatenated) to the cite template. If that doesn't work: don't worry about it, I can make it work.

[Last paragraph split off to start next sub-section.]

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, but there are no claims to being the authoritative or the most accurate here. Regarding citing what others say the officials say, the government-run press should be a reliable source for reporting the government figures! I agree though, that a government source of some sort dedicated to reporting such figures would be better, but this is more than sufficient until such a source can be found.

Sorry about the citation format change! Feel free to change the formatting - or I’ll get around to it in a bit. Note that the year of the Xinhua article is 2017, not 2019. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold vs emphasis

I am going to demure on removing the bolding. I agree we generally avoid that. But with a bunch of different figures (and adamantly not wanting to convert that section into a table) I think the different figures should be highlighted in some way, but more than italiciation. They are, after all, essentially index terms for the content of that section, and (I feel) should be readily findable without having to sequentially search the text. As to alternatives: Underlining? I rather don't like it (makes the numbers a little less clear), but could accept it. Colored text? Not really a good idea. Background coloring? So so, has to be done carefully, but I am kind of liking it. How about a slightly larger font? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

For highlighting the figures, that’s the purpose of the emphasis template! I do think that it’s sufficient even though it’s less prominent than bolding. Also relevant is that the “em” and “strong” templates produce semantic emphasis as opposed to just typographic emphasis. An example of the usage difference is that semantic markup is read by text-to-speech readers for the visually impaired and by other software that usually ignores typographic markup (normal bolding using apostrophes, normal italicization, colors, etc.). — MarkH21 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I beg to disagree on the use of {{em}}. It is for mild emphasis (not highlighting!) that is semantically significant. These figures are key terms, essentially the topic of each paragraph, but not, I think, otherwise semantically significant. Note that the effect intended here is not a mild bump of emphasis as one reads the text (e.g., "this term is significant"), but (from the {{strong}} documentation)to draw the eye from elsewhere on the page. It's a matter of scanability: to find a particular figure in the section. (Though as {strong} is also "semantically significant" the use of the WP <b> or triple apostrophes are indicated.)

I note that bolding of subsection headings is not only permissible, but done automatically. If each paragraph is broken out as a subsection, with the figure under discussion used as the heading, then the scanability problem is solved, and we are entirely kosher per MOS:BOLD. However, I don't particularly like lots of small subsections. Perhaps we could just prefix the figure (in bold) to each paragraph as a quasi-subsection heading. What do you think?

In any event, I think italicization, no matter how effected, is neither appropriate nor useful here.

Alternately, perhaps a colored background? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here, it is semantic emphasis! Typographic bolding / italicization is used where there is "no sense of emphasis", e.g. titles of publications, headers, scientific names. Here, we are emphasizing the figures because they are the primary topic of discussion in that section. It does not carry a strong semantic meaning, but I do think there is a semantic emphasis here. I also agree that it would be strange and undesirable to make each figure a subsection, which if justified would automatically merit bolding for typographic reasons. Quasi-subsections would be just as strange though. Otherwise, bolding here would be very distracting and draw too much emphasis to just the figures. The background coloring might work... I feel like I've seen that on another article before but I can't find an example right now. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you saw it in the (now) first paragraph of this section? Which goes to show that background color can be subtle to the point of uselessness. Seems to need a stronger color than "azure". Perhaps something on the order of "at least 655,000 dead"?

Sorry, no, this emphasis is not "semantic": its presence or absence makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the text. (That "sense of emphasis" is a bit misleading. E.g., the primary purpose of typographic bolding is to make an element, such as a volume number, stand out from the rest, which is a form of emphasis. And exactly what we need to do here. I think this "sense" is where one part of a sentence is emphasized relative to another part, which can clarify, or alter, the meaning, but that doesn't happen here.) Drawing attention to the figures is exactly what is needed. Italics are too "mild" for this, as you hardly notice them until you're already upon them. I see the figures as a primary index key, which is useless if the only way to find a given figure is sequential reading.

How do you reckon that bolding would be "very distracting"? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah okay, I think I misunderstood your intention of use of bolding / emphasis / color to be actual emphasis and demonstrating the varied figures rather than as an index. How it was before, the bolding was too strong to serve as emphasis and really pulls one’s eyes away from other text. To some extent, this is the purpose of indexing typography but this was to the degree that it detracts from the rest of the content in the section. I think this is also what is the stance of MOS:BOLD which only prescribes boldface for article title terms, automatically bolded terms (headers, infobox, etc.), and a few specific cases (e.g. mathematics). Avoidance elsewhere is still the preference, regardless of the reason of emphasis.

Regardless, I disagree with the need to index the figures (which would usually then merit subsections) since there is only a sentence or so for each figure. I think that there are too many figures with small accompanying text for it to really be useful.

What I meant by an example is an article that uses the colored background. Are there articles that currently use colored background for figures? I feel like I might have seen one once but I’m not sure. Perhaps an outside opinion may help for this matter? There may be some who are experts on WP typography that may help here at WP:TYP (which seems to possibly be inactive), WP:RFC, or somewhere else? — MarkH21 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As to colored backgrounds for figures: there are infoboxes (e.g.: {{weather box}}) that use colored backgrounds, but more to classify within a table than to emphasize. I searched article space for "hastemplate:bg"; got a rather low 415 hits. (Perhaps by another name would turn up more?) A cursory examination showed use of {bg} for emphasis at Base64, but that was in a table. At any rate, I don't feel any love for {bg}. What I would really like is something on the order of "half-bold". Hmm, I might try some experiments with {fg} to that end. Another idea I had: Fraktur! (Gee, aren't all letters essentially black by default?) Maybe a 115% font size? Another idea I want to swish around a bit: some kind of bullet.

Even with only "a sentence or so" for each, the different figures are the essential elements of the section. (They could also be viewed in respect of the sources, but that is a secondary consideration/key.) It is a very notable element of the story that there were these highly divergent (and strikingly large) figures, and it is reasonable that readers are likely to be interested in comparing the different figures. That is the point of highlighting: to enable the reader to quickly find ("index") the figure that each little pile of text is about. (A table would facilitate that, but I find a table to be unsuitable here.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So I tried some experiments. (See User:J. Johnson/sandbox2.) Two methods look good: using guillemets, and {{larger}} (sets font size to 110%), giving "no more than «242,419» people died in the quake" and "no more than 242,419 people died in the quake". I still prefer bold, and haven't yet figured out any way of doing "half-bold", but would consider guillements and {larger} satisfactory in giving the readers a visual "anchor". How do you feel about these? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit uneasy about fraktur (even if properly rendered) as I haven't seen any use of it outside of mathematics. My understanding is that guillemets are only used in some languages outside of English and for translations from other languages to English, so I don't feel particularly good about that either. Larger also seems a bit off... I'll make a post at the typographical Wikiprojects to ask for attention or otherwise make an RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraktur (as an instance of an inherently bolded typeface) is just my little amusement. Stand easy! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: bold vs emphasis

The consensus is against adding bolding or emphasis of the reported death figures.

Cunard (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should reported death figures for a historical event use boldface, emphasis, or any other type of typographic or semantic emphasis? The editors and are unsure of the options and standards. One editor is against the use of boldface per MOS:NOBOLD and advocates for the use of italics or {{em}}, while the other editor would like a typographic way to highlight the death figures as indices. See the above section for past discussion and additional proposed alternatives. 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no need for any form of highlighting. Digits are taller than most lowercase letters, so it's already easy to pick out a multi-digit number from a passage of text:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, lorem vivendo luptatum an qui. Sea munere feugait recusabo ei 242,419, dicit convenire accommodare at mei, et ornatus efficiantur sit. At qui dolores vulputate consectetuer, harum eripuit ne duo, vim mazim prompta ea 275,000. Ne numquam saperet mel. Ei est zril dicunt dolorum.

Maproom (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SEVERE doesn't bold death tolls for tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Normally we do not bold or otherwise highlight a death toll (or any other single number). But in this case it is notable that there was not "a" death toll (including preliminary estimates), but multiple and wildly differing death tolls, which took on political significance. (E.g., claims of a government cover-up.) I think it is reasonable to assume that many readers will arrive here (or return) with a particular number in mind they have seen elsewhere, and would like to go directly to the relevant text, which bolding or highlighting would faciliate. That digits are as tall as capital letters is of little effect. (So are the lowercase letters 'bfhl', for what little effect that has.) But note that making them a little larger – 110%, to be precise, using {{larger}}, as in '243,419 deaths' – is one option under consideration. Another options is just insert a bullet ('•') of some kind, or to enclose the figures in guillements, like «this». ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No emphasis. See MOS:TEXT. This doesn't qualify for italics or boldface. It's just numbers. And there being multiple conflicting numeric reports makes them even less appropriate to emphasize per WP:DUE, since they're all shaky data. Are we certain we should be including them at all, instead of a simple range from high to low estimates? That seems like the more normal practice. The experiments in the thread above this (guillemets and large font size) are even further from our stylistic norms, and bear no resemblance to other Wikipedia content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mac: this is not one of your more stellar comments. While all data has a degree of shakiness, there are big differences in the reliability and significance of these data. Presenting them as "just numbers" in "a simple range" does the readers a disservice in blunting their understanding of the matter. Some of these numbers have been very widely repeated (even in a peer-reviewed journal), but for all that they are entirely meaningless without some explanation of where and how they came about. They all have some basis, and though we are not fortunate enough to know all of that I think we should explain what we can. And as I said above, I think it is quite likely that some readers will arrive here wanting to know not what the range of estimates was, but about a particular number. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But it's not like the numbers won't still be there. Plus, are there that many readers with a specific figure reported in 1976 or 1977 soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds coming to the death toll section of the earthquake page specifically to look for that figure? That's a very narrow audience, plus the section is not very long / dense and it's not difficult to find the different figures anyways. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "very small audience" would be those people who had a casaulty figure "soon after the earthquake ingrained in their minds". (Especially as most of the world's population wasn't even alive then.) The much more likely scenario is someone is comparing "the world's deadliest natural disasters" (or some suchy), or comes here straight from List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes, where the "242,769–655,000" range given for Tangshan ranks it deadlier than three other earthquakes of 273,400, 250,000, and 260,000 deaths, and wants to know something about the validity of the different numbers.

But I weary of this discussion. For a distinct albeit small improvement I am getting way too much friction. The harder our readers have to work to understand something the more they will value it; right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. To digress, I think that the range on that page should probably be changed to what is the current "official" (government) figure. Even the USGS site doesn't list the range but notes the high estimates as note. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe you refer to the WP "List of" page. Yes, the range there is not what the cited source says, and ought to be corrected. I have not undertaken that correction, or others, because undoubtedly there are other instances, and I think this page should address the different numbers that readers are very likely to have encountered elsewhere. Simply giving our readers more contradictory numbers (i.e., typical WP style!), or even not giving them the numbers, serves them less well than if we provide some basis for resolving the contradictions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ceased to exist"

@J. Johnson: Regarding this, even if Housner writes ceased to exist doesn't mean that we should use it here. It's a dramatic flourish suitable for a book but not for Wikipedia articles, particularly since it's not precisely correct. If eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, then the city did not literally cease to exist. It's just literary flair. I'm not sure why you prefer that to something capturing the same spirit like nearly completely destroyed that is accurate and not just puff.

Also regarding the revert and what I think was confusion over my edit summary (i.e. about the cns?), the while true, doesn’t really need to be said especially if unattributed part of my edit summary refers to me reverting this edit and still seems dramatic and somewhat imprecise refers to the ceased to exist change. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your view of continued existence seems to be based on having some fragment of the city's physical fabric surving intact, while Dr. Housner's view was that it no longer existed as a functional, living entity. This would be clearer if you would read the source (your "even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services. "[N]early completely destroyed" is inaccurate (how much is "nearly completely"?), not what the source says, and does not "capture the same spirit" as the explicit "ceased to exist" as a fuctioning entity. Yes, it is dramatic, but so was the reality, and I know of no rule or guideline that prohibits use of an accurate, sourced statement. You imply that it is "puff", but I don't see that. The city was entirely rebuilt, to a new plan, so it seems quite accurate to say that Tangshan as it was no longer exists.

No misunderstanding about the other edit. The "one of the most damaging [EQs] in modern history" is a fair rendering of Housner's "greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world", and arguably even more accurate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the Housner & He source... even if here means that despite the source having the words ceased to exist, I don't think that the article should state that in WP voice in the lead.

My point is simply that ceased to exist is a literary dramatic flourish that, while an interesting hook, can be misconstrued and replaced by more standard neutral wording (neutral in the sense of emotional & reporting tone, not in the sense of NPOV). The city still existed - sure not in its former form or as a functional city - but it continued to exist in a destroyed state with several hundreds of thousands of surviving inhabitants, and later continued to exist as a rebuilt city. The words ceased to exist (without any other context, e.g. without the as a functioning entity that you provide) can carry the connotation that Tangshan was no longer any kind of entity, that Tangshan was no longer an item in history after July 28, 1976, and that the approximately 1 million inhabitants were wiped out. This is what I mean when I say that those words, without any additional context, are inaccurate and dramatic. Can you see what I mean here? I'm not saying that the phrasing is prohibited by guideline or policy, but that the wording can be improved through some modification.

Perhaps some other alternative to nearly completely destroyed would be better, but even removing the entire sentence would be fine. Perhaps even just combining the two adjacent sentences to form:

In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable...

I'm sure we can come up with several suggestions that would be better than just stating that it ceased to exist.

Also I don't see the point of adding the sentence This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history. when the very next sentence says that the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history. It's unnecessary and redundant since the second sentence already prescribes it as one of the most damaging in recorded history. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Taking your last point, re "most damaging", first: the first sentence is about damage, while the following sentence is about deaths (i.e., fatalities). Those are different, not at all redundant; your comment is incorrect. While I am rather neutral on whether it stays, I would hope you can make a better argument for its removal.

Your "even if Housner writes ceased to exist" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that, where it is readily verifiable that he did, in fact write that. Presuming that you had merely not read the source seemed the more charitable explanation for what you wrote. Perhaps you don't understand that "if" carries a strong sense of "possibly not true"? Perhaps "despite", meaning notwithstanding, unaffected, or regardless, better fits what you meant to say?

And perhaps you are reading too much into "ceased to exist"? We could add a qualifying "as a functional entity", which would clarify what Housner meant. But would there then be a problem with that not being exactly what he said? At any rate, I find "ceased to exist" a more accurate description than the weasely "nearly completely destroyed", which is NOT what Housner said.

I don't what you mean by "more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Damage can refer to both damage to physical structures and damage to human life. Plus, the quote to which you associate this sentence doesn't specifically refer to physical damage in greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world from Housner-He. If you're neutral on whether the statement stays, then I take it that you won't oppose its removal unless you want to be POINTY.

You're talking about "if", which is different from "even if". "Even if" is synonymous with "despite", "in spite of", etc. You can check any dictionary you want to see that (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, OALD).

The lead doesn't need to say exactly what Housner-He say, unless it is specifically attributed to them a la WP:INTEXT. It would be fine to either write According to Housner-He, ... ceased to exist or modify the statement to something else without in-text attribution to them. Again, I am not suggesting that we have to use nearly completely destroyed. See the proposed text in my previous comment.

It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. Do you not see how ceased to exist can have different implications, which I discussed in my last comment? One can describe the physical devastation and tragic loss of life without using cheap idioms that lacks precision, even if that's how one book introduces the topic

If you refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives, we can just go to RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"If", again? That is a hypothetical, as I have not "refuse[d] to consider any proposals or alternatives". And I have offered an alternative, to which you have not responded.

Per your own citation (Oxford), "even" as adverb is "used to emphasize something unexpected or surprising", which, coupled with your "if", suggested to me that you were surprised or doubtful of what Housner said. But you are being unnecessarily contentious here: you seem to have missed my key qualification that your "even if" comes across to me as questioning whether Housner wrote that. Whether you or I have the better grasp of a fine point of English usage is quite immaterial here, as I was attempting to explain why I thought you might not have read the source. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.

Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "cheap idiom". Also, WP:IDIOM says nothing about "cheap"; it says that "Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Which I believe favors "ceased to exist".

And I find your characterization of death as subsumed under "damage to human life" rather bizarre. My broad experience is that damage and deaths are always reckoned separately, and that this is so obvious – i.e., WP:BLUE – that it hardly warrants assertion. But if you can find some source that says otherwise, sure, knock yourself out, perhaps I will find it amusing.

The concept of WP:I just don't like it is where you have opinions, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You've still ignored my proposed text and immediately shot down your own proposal of adding as a functioning entity, which I also think is worse than other alternatives. Would you care to consider the proposed removal of the text in the blockquote that begins In minutes, eighty-five percent...? I don't see any argument for why ceased to exist should be in the lead, besides Housner-He having written it. I don't see it adding any value here, and only serving to be imprecise and idiomatic language.

By the Oxford citation, see that it defines even if (distinct from even + if) as: despite the possibility that; no matter whether and despite the fact that; even though. There's no implication whatsoever that there is any surprise or doubt. That's just a fact of English. It's fine if you misunderstand the wording, but don't be so quick to accuse editors of not reading sources.

What is bizarre was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic (Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring?). That, plus your quip Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop.

Yep, WP:IDIOM says Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions as you point out. Ceased to exist is an idiom; it's a form of "cease to be" which is in the Wiktionary list of English idioms (linked in WP:IDIOM) and in the Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. But even disregarding its status as an idiom, I have discussed how it is imprecise. Especially when taken as a direct, literal expressions, it is imprecise because Tangshan did not literally stop existing on 28 July 1976. Do you not accept that there are other connotations of the phrase (no longer being any entity, being wiped out, etc.)? I don't see that you've acknowledged that yet.

It's standard and within guidelines to write precisely, unambiguously, and clearly. That ceased to exist is imprecise and has other interpretations that are inappropriate here is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple logical argument for modifying the statement. You might not think that any alternative expresses what happens more precisely and clearly while I do, sure. Just because you disagree with the argument doesn't mean that my position is somehow entirely opinion-based and not borne from any application of WP writing guidelines and standards. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"This earthquake is regarded as one of the most damaging in modern history."

(Splitting this issue from the above discussion)

If damaging is taken in its most general sense (including human cost, physical damage, financial cost) then it is redundant with the sentence that immediately follows it (...making this the third (or possibly second) deadliest earthquake in recorded history.). Number of deaths is a easily quantifiable and common way of describing the destructiveness of an earthquake (alongside magnitude, intensity scales, and financial cost).

If damaging is taken to solely mean physical/structural damage:

1. The attributed Housner-He source does not say it was one of the most damaging earthquakes, it says that it was the greatest earthquake disaster in the history of the world - this does not refer to physical damage alone.
2. There is no source in the article that asserts that it is one of the most physically damaging earthquakes. Here I am focusing on the superlative one of the most (and regarded by whom?).

Then the claim is unreferenced. If this is purely about physical damage separate from the deadliness, then any claims about being a superlative for physical damage should be clearly sourced whether it is a specific claim (e.g. in terms of intensity scales or buildings destroyed) or a more general statement about physical damage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)