Talk:Amatrice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

AILISH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.254.84 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

August 2016 Earthquake[edit]

They've been hit hard by an earthquake. We can discuss here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.62.119 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A bit early to describe the town as "entirely destroyed." A more moderate approach should be taken until the situation becomes clearer. Opus131 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is/was and actual sources[edit]

Folks, let's stick to the facts and not our interpretation of them. And please stop sourcing things to google searches.

Let's stick to the facts, which to the best of my knowledge are:

  • Amatrice was struck by the earthquake.
  • Amatrice has received so much damage that the "Civil Protection agency said no residents will be allowed to sleep in the devastated town of Amatrice Wednesday night." - CNN
  • Amatrice has been, in various sources, described as "devastated",CNN,The Guardian "in ruins",[CNN, same article], "scene[s] of devastation" [CNN, same article], "largely reduced to rubble" BBC, an eyewitness stating "the town is completely devastated" [BBC, same article], "[...] rubble of a town that seems almost to have toppled on to its hillside" [The Guardian, same article]
  • Depending on the source, the mayor has said that "three-quarters of the town was destroyed",a different BBC article the town "is gone",CNN, while The Guardian, different article than above uses "Mayor of Amatrice: half of the town ‘isn’t here any more’" just below its headline, with the longer quote "The mayor of Amatrice, Sergio Pirozzi, told local media: “Half the village has disappeared. The aim now is to save as many lives as possible. There are voices under the rubble, we have to save the people there.”" in the body of that article.

Further information in articles provides the following:

  • "A regional council engineer, Orlando Sandro, said 80% of Amatrice’s old town centre had been destroyed, adding that the foundations of many of the buildings that had not collapsed were so badly weakened they would have to be pulled down." - The Guardian, first of the two linked articles.
  • "Two or three nearby hamlets had completely disintegrated, he said, adding that the town’s 700-strong population swells to about 2,000 in the summer and he now feared for its future." (Clarification: He = mayor of Amatrice) [Same Guardian article]

Unless there is a really good source I have overlooked somewhere (something that *isn't* https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=Amatrice or similar google searches), none of the above is quite enough to state in wikipedia's voice that "It was declared as "no more [in existence]" on August 24, 2016 by its mayor after it was destroyed in a 6.2-magnitude earthquake" because unless I've overlooked something, no such official declarations have been made. There is a difference between someone having said something and something 'having been declared'—especially in the context of an official in any form of government, where 'declaration' has more official meanings. There is', however, enough sourced information to state that

  • "according to CNN, the mayor of Amatrice said that the town 'is no more'." or something along those lines, above-linked source included.

That is a change I have thus made (+one of the sources giving a different quote, and that quote.) I've also rewritten a significant portion of the lead, mostly to include more details and sources. To get around the is/was part, I've changed the lead's opening to "Amatrice is the name of a town and comune [...] that was heavily struck by[...]". Yes, it is clumsy, but it's the best compromise I could think of on the spot. I have removed the redlinked categories. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Due to edit conflict, I have not removed the redlinked categories because they were already removed. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016i (UTC)
This seems silly to me; during WW2 the district of Chuo (say) in Tokyo was pretty much completely destroyed by firebombing, but it wouldn't have been appropriate to announce that Chuo didn't exist any more in 1945. If it had not been repopulated later it would be reasonable at some point to say it was gone. As for the mayor, saying "Amatrice non c'è più" may be an attempt at declaring a new legal state or may be an emotional reaction to the loss of essential features of the village, or most likely a combination of the two. It should be left as is for a few weeks.--Markbenjamin (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone changed it back to "was". Maybe we can get some page protection for this article? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Amatrice is devastated, but still exists, it's too early to change it to "was", let's wait a year. 93.172.215.137 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

a stringent construction code[edit]

The older core of Norcia is almost flat, which is relatively unusual among the towns of Umbria. It is completely enclosed by a full circuit of walls that has survived intact from the 14th century. They stood up despite many earthquakes, of which several were devastating (1763, 1859, 1979). After the earthquake of August 22, 1859, the Papal States, to which Norcia then belonged, imposed a stringent construction code forbidding structures of more than 3 stories and requiring the use of certain materials and building techniques - I wonder if someone can find this code. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.41.3.21 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amatrice. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)