Talk:1906 San Francisco earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 1906 San Francisco earthquake was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 6, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake article.
Article policies

An event in this article is a April 18 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

I've merged in some redundant material from the San Francisco Earthquake article, which I've now made into a redirect. Terry 18:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "single worst single worst natural disaster" ???

Are we forgetting the Galveston Hurricane? At the very least, a disclaimer should be put in to read something like "It remains the worst natural disaster in US history in terms of property damage." Because the Galveston Hurricane in 1900 claimed anywhere from 6,000-12,000 deaths, while the fire 'only' claimed 3,000.

One other question, because it is somewhat ambiguous: Is the $400,000,000 in damage actual 1906 dollars, or adjusted to 2005 dollars. The Galveston Hurricane article has both. It should be noted if the figure given is in 1906 or 2005 dollars. JRath 13 September 2005 12:15 Central US time

The leading internet source for that figure is this, which is on Everything2. The people there say that $400m was the figure in 1906 money. $400m isn't much money nowadays, but then again San Francisco had fewer things to burn in 1906! I don't know if Everything2 is a good source. It would be good if the article could give some scale to that figure. How much could $400m buy in 1906? This article is going to get a lot of attention in the coming days. Lupine Proletariat 09:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if the $400m is a 1906 figure that amounts to about $8.2 billion in 2005 dollars [1] Stratosphere 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


I am doing a report on this topic, and I am in 6th grade. What details do you think would be most important to include in my 1-page report?

[edit] Two omissions

Oddly, this article seems to have very little treatment of the actual earthquake. The first section is "Subsequent fires". It might be worthwhile to have a discussion of the geology, the fault, the liquefaction of the filled-in areas, and probably building codes and masonry construction (and weren't there some new steel structures? how did they fare by comparison?). The other is the "Aftermath" section which seems to devote more words (barely) to plans that were never realized, than to what was done. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix on seal: good call by recent editor

It is true that the seal of the City is a phoenix rising from fire; the earthquake, however, is only coincidental — because later than the seal by about 50 years. See the page on the seal at the official website of the City of San Francisco. Good call, anon! Bill 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relocation and housing of the displaced

Steve Zissou? As in the wes anderson movie? Cornell Rockey 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism. Reverted. I didn't see it in the recent history, so I will chase it down and warn the vandal. The reliable source for John McLaren is [2]. MCB 23:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
ive found alot of vandalism can somone fix it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.219.244 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Army's Rescue

The third paragraph of this section is worded like it describing the picture in this section. If so, it needs to be placed in the picture's caption, not made into a text paragraph. Thanks. Hmains 00:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Toll

The article mentions a "conservative" death toll of 13,000 and some estimates of 27,000. However, I've never seen a credible estimate much higher than 3,000. Where do these numbers come from?--Paul 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the numbers and provided a source.--Paul 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen a conservative death toll of 3,000 and estimates of 5,000. There was actually a cover-up after the quake. (Nick31091 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

There is no death toll listed in the article now. Rsduhamel (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you not have a death toll from a disaster in a city? Isn't it rather odd? 77.28.233.81 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now added the 3000 estimate based on this website from The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susequent fires section has gone missing

the entire section on the subsequent fires is now lost -- including all of the information on Eastwood and Jacobs -- through vandalism. The reverts missed that. The fires created the greatest damage.

Reverted further to restore the lost section. Thanks for mentioning that. -- Infrogmation 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not know if there was more lost... It was just in the last two weeks, however. I just noticed that section was missing, Looks to be a full time job keeping this free of vandalism. Will keep a lookout on this every once in a while

thanks, Infrogmation, for replacing the S.F. subsequent fires section so quickly

[edit] Note to Infrogmation

I'm the one who noted the missing section on the subsequent fires -- was going to replace it, but you beat me to it!

Took a quick look at your user article and just have to say that for decades my family kept several apartments (everyone had their own, they were small, and no one knew who was going to show up, nor when, in New Orleans so it kept the peace to have them all separate) in the Saint Peter's Street building Larry Bornstein owned -- in which Alan Jaffe (and lots of others) started Preservation Hall. Bill Russell was writing about all of the musicians and one of the family was living in England working as a producer for BBC (and Alan King) when he came back to film "Kid" Orey before he died on us -- I was lucky enough to be involved. The film was shown in theaters in certain cities and aired on PBS through WGBH in Boston. You can imagine what it was like to have the music coming up through that courtyard the entire time they performed.

Can not remember the name of the artist who painted all of the musicians at the hall -- I have some of them, bought through Larry Bornstein -- do you know his name? Will check back to see if you do, or can find out.

Are you old enough to have eaten at Buster's? Best red beans and rice in town during the sixties, seventies, and eighties.

Tried to post this on your user talk page, was prevented from posting there by a blacklisted blocking notice... about a spam filter triggered by a Dali site that I have never visited. Thought you ought to know about that also... may be happening to others. Obviously I am not blocked here... so do not understand. --- k

I do have fond memories of Buster Holmes redbeans & rice, Bill Russell and some other things you mention. I was going to reccomend you post this more appropriately on my user talk page-- I don't know why you're blocked there but not here. I suggest you choose yourself a user name and log in, and let me know if there's still a problem. I believe the artist you're thinking of is Noel Rockmore. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Created a new id and tried to post to your user page -- with the same results (the Dali site being the problem again). Sorry to use this page, but still am unable to post to your user page. Will use the new id to sign here, but am unsure of what to do to resolve the block.---k as 83d40m 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggest using my new user page for further discussion... 83d40m 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage estimate

I've flagged the following statement as "cite needed": "The official estimate of $300 million in damage has been shown to be upward of $5 billion." The estimate on the National Geological Survey Web site is much lower, $400 million in 1906 dollars. (cf. http://quake.usgs.gov/info/1906/casualties.html ) Can someone verify the $5 billion figure and determine whether it's in 1906 or current dollars? Thanks. RickDC 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

$400 million in 1906 dollars is equal to over $8 billion in 2005 dollars. See The Inflation Calculator. I've reworded the statement in the article.--Paul 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've not re-worded it. Damage could have been $5 billion, which is $100 billion in 2005 dollars. After all, the entire downtown of the city was destroyed. It does need a reference, however.--Paul 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found a verification for the $5 billion figure (well, $4.9 billion), which makes clear it's in 2005 dollars and that it refers to insured losses; the 1906 equivalent was $235 million per the source, which is the Insurance Information Institute. A higher figure ($400 million in losses) is found on the US Geological Survery Web site. I'll reword the sentence to reflect these estimates and footnote the sources. Thanks, Paul. RickDC 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence "The official estimate of $300 million in damage has been shown to be upward of $5 billion." It's now clear that it compares apples and oranges--1906 and present dollars. I've moved the damage estimates to the top of the section. RickDC 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco cover-up

Why am I the first to mention this? Anyway, I saw a show on the Discovery Times channel called Unsolved History which shows that there was a massive cover-up of the quakes actual damage. Some examples:

1. Actual cost in money: $300 million to a few billion 2. Death toll from quake (not counting fire casualties in Chinatown and police shootings): 478 to upwards of 3,000; approaching 5,000 (counting done by San Fran. historians and geneologists) 3. Areas of great quake damage (most damage was blamed on fires) 4. # of police and army shootings: just a few to 500+ 5. Alteration of photos (durastic changes in hue to origional images revealed multiple pencil marks and airbrushing) (on one image about 30% was retouch) 6. "spin" in publications etc.

Why is this not mentioned in the article? Many areas that today are considered quake-safe were in fact disaster areas. For more info, try to catch Unsolved History: The 1906 Earthquake Cover-up on Doscovery Times channel (Nick31091 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, I was wondering about this, as well. It's hardly a conspiracy theory, and even if it was it would still be worthy of addition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.191.205.22 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I heard somewhere that the cover up was supported by local businessmen in order to attract further immigration to SF. Even the event was called SF Great Fire, to omit the quake... 77.28.233.81 (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent fires

According to the books I have read, the initial fires were almost all put out with the avaible water, but then a new fire started (Ham and Egg Fire). That fire run for more than a day and did most of the damage. It could run unchecked because most pounded water was gone and water mains were broken, also the firefighters were worn out. One house survived since the owner fought for it with the watertanks in the house. He saved his whole flag-collection. The insurance companies mostly blamed the fire on the earthquake since it was that or going belly up. A few insurance companies which had few insurances in California paid up. Since my memory of the books is somewhat faulty I will wait until I can get hold of the books again before I change the chapter about fire. Seniorsag 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Prevention

I am reading a book called "Life after Doomsday" by Bruce Clayton, and on page 8 he wrote, "the local fire chief had insisted to the city council that San Francisco was inadequately protected against fire. For one thing, the water mains all crossed the San Andreas fault, and no provisions had been made for the possibility that they would break in an earthquake and leave the city without water." It is an interesting bit of trivia and might be interesting enough for the main page. - cymbol

[edit] priority?

I'm surprised that this isn't Top priority for the SFBA project. Stepheng3 (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Raised to Top priority. Stepheng3 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] awsome photos

Actually they are so awsome and high quality, it makes me feel they faked and photoshoped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.159 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) It was 1906! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.159 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Impact of Gold Rush

"There were decades of minor earthquakes - more than at any other time in the historical record for northern California - before the 1906 quake. Widely previously interpreted as precursory activity to the 1906 earthquake, they have been found to have a strong seasonal pattern and were found to be due to large seasonal sediment loads in coastal bays that overlie faults as a result of the California Gold Rush.[6]"

This seems like an incredible assertion; only backed up by a 2004 paper which we are unable to read, aside from the abstract. Is there any independent analysis or reaction to this paper, which would indicate its premise is widely accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aepryus (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Push and WikiProject Earthquakes

I have started the GA push of this article. Also, anyone interested is welcome to join WikiProject Earthquakes. ~Meldshal42 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Although I admire your audacity in pushing for GA at this stage, I can't help feeling that this is premature. The article has a long-standing "more citations needed" tag on the Aftermath and reconstruction section; I have just added another to an earlier section which is also woefully short on references. There are probably at least 30 more citations necessary across the article. Moreover, the quality of some references is suspect. For example, [9] doesn't appear to relate to the sentence at whose end it is placed. [11] is a pretty thin source for the statement it supposedly verifies - a soldier reports that he is told by a fireman that people were setting fire to their houses for insurance purposes. I'd want more verification than that.
  • If I were the GA reviewer I might query the following:
    • The opening sentence, which reads: "The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was a major earthquake that struck San Francisco..." This is somewhat repetitive and clumsy. There is later close repetition in the lead of the phrase "the earthquake and resulting fires"
    • The lead does not summarise the whole article.
    • In the Geology section, rather than give the Modified Mercelli intensity scale values of VIII and IX, forcing the reader to use the link, you could easily say "destructive" and "ruinous".
    • "There were decades of minor earthquakes..." doesn't actually make sense, though I know what you mean (minor earthquakes had been occurring for decades). You should reword.
    • You have a sentence beginning with two adverbs: "Widely previously...", which is ugly. The sentence is itself too long and twisty and needs reworking.
    • I didn't get further reading through, because of the citation problem, but there may be other prose issues.
    • You appear to be ignoring WP:MOS, at least as far as dashes and nbsps ae concerned.
    • The images are brilliant. One question - how do we know that the "looting soldiers" were actually looting? Couldn't they have been collecting abandoned property? Unless there is very specific evidence, beyond "reports", I'd alter the caption to say "allegedly looting".

I hope this helps, and that the GA quest eventually prospers. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will quickly comment that the picture of soldiers looting is titled similarly on the original site [3], which is part of the University of California library system [4]. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1906 San Francisco earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I am quick failing this nomination because of the lack of references in the article. It currently contains 19 "citation needed" tags, and there are other statements that should also be sourced. There are also two cleanup banners. I realize that much of this tagging was done after the nomination, but one cleanup banner has been in place since October 2007. Please ensure that the article is thoroughly sourced before it is renominated. Please also note that citations need to be properly formatted with at least a title, publisher, URL, and accessdate; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template.

Because this is a quick fail, this is not a thorough review. I recommend making the necessary changes and then putting the article up for peer review before renominating. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)