Talk:1976 Songpan–Pingwu earthquake

Untitled

I reworded the last sentence, added in two new sentences that gave more information of the events leading up to the earthquake and the aftershocks, added an internal link to "earthquake swarm" to another wikipedia page, then I added the "jones" reference for my source. MAC2019 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1976 Songpan–Pingwu earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527185055/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/pager/events/us/2008slat/index.html to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/pager/events/us/2008slat/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That link has been removed, as it was to the wrong event. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent work (2018)

@Skyfiler: I am reverting or revising some of your edits, for the following reasons.

1. Please put the full citations (with the bibliographic details) in the "Sources" section, using either a {{citation}} template, or a "cite" template with the |mode=cs2 parameter.

2. Please do not use "named-refs" (the "<ref name= ..." construction) here. Use a "short-cite" (with the {{harvnb}} template or some equivalent). (I will try to convert the citations you added.)

3. The Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney is not an authoritative source on earthquake magnitudes. Authoritative sources would be catalogs, such as the International Seismological Centre (ISC) or the USGS Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Or they could be papers by experts published in reliable journals, such as the 1984 paper by Jones et al.

♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no author was listed on the source page. Those are government websites and as usual do sloppy work in attributing to authors or even list date of publishing. As for citation style you are free to convert. I don't get here often and don't have the time to learn templates. Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney maynot be authoritative on Chinese earthquakes but its the best online translation I can find and it does not contradict any Chinese government or academic sources I can find online or offline.

I don't see any problem listing Chinese governmental measurement of magnitudes. When sources disagree we are supposed to be neutral not adding our own judgement. Naturally most sources on the subject gonna be in Chinese and the Chinese governmental measurement is the most widely cited. ISC or ANSS measurements are significant-minority viewpoints at best and if we write the article as if they are the only measurements in existence, we fail WP:V.

If you insist on using academic sources you can replace the reference to the journal source I recently added but removed by you for "poorly written". I am not going to contribute anymore to pages guarded by you as I only researched the topic at your request but it seems you don't appreciate it.--Skyfiler (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems you fail to understand that the Consulate-General of the PRC (for that matter, any Consulate) is entirely non-authoritative regarding earthquake magnitudes. At best it can only repeat what other sources have said. And we have more authoritative sources for this: i.e., the ANSS and ISC. Your statement that "ISC or ANSS measurements are significant-minority viewpoints at best..." is mind-blowingly inane. The ISC is the world's preeminent, most authoritative source of seismic data, collecting and assessing data from nearly all seismic networks. Your continuation, that "if we write the article as if they are the only measurements in existence, we fail WP:V", is just plain bullshit. For starters, you don't understand that the ISC collects data contributed by the major seismic networks, so if we wanted to show all of "the measurements in existence" that is exactly where we would find them. You also fail to consider that our readers don't need (let alone desire) a list of "all the measurements" (even if we limit that to just magnitudes). They are best served with a most authoritative magnitude (typically on M_w  and/or M_s  scales). Most likely you also do not understand that the most accurate measurements of moment magnitude (M_w ) is NOT obtained locally, but from measurements from a score or more of stations at regional to global distances. That such measurements usually differ is not contradiction, it reflects different aspects of the situation that need to be fit together, like the pieces of a puzzle. Which is precisely what the ISC does. And the ISC data can accessed directly, in English, without translation.

An essential element of WP:V is adequate citation, which is generally expected in templated form. If you "don't have enough time to learn templates" your addition of doubtful and inadequately sourced material is not useful, and properly removed. If there is material you feel would a useful addition I suggest you mention it on the Talk page, along with such sourcing as you have. When (and if) more experienced editors have time to look at it they can consider whether such material warrants inclusion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)