Talk:Typhoon Rita (1972)

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

About the tropical characteristic of Rita at Bohai Sea and its impact to north China.

I had posted a link to the radar image of Rita at Tianjin that showed it well-defined low level circulation center, which strongly suggested its tropical characteristics. In any case, my description can be modified as it seemed not absolutely irrefutable. Morover, Japan Meteorological Agency's best track only represent the opinion of one institution, while Joint Typhoon Warning Center and China Meteorological Agency all judged it as a tropical cyclone, why the preview edition only showed the JMA's idea? JMA became the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center at 1980s, so it is not the authority in the 1970s.

As Rita's impact had been happened too many years before, all the resource (espcially the authoritative source) can hardly find on the Internet(remind that China was suffering so-called Cultural Revolution at 1972). We can only find them in paper books. I wonder why you see them questionable? Rita was a famous typhoon in north China, I can hardly imagine that the wikipedia item of her had not mentioned her impact to China. After all, even if my post is of "questionble" quality(bad written English or lack of details), it is better than NONE, for these reasons please admit this edition. If you are not familiar or professional about tropical cyclone or if you feel difficult on confirming such Chinese resources, may you ask other editors of this topic before instead of revert my post roughly? BeijingCup (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed sources concerning this in English that are accessible online that can be used rather than the two Chinese language books you have personally read that no one other than yourself has access to. And you cannot use image files uploaded to external websites, particularly a user-generated forum like http://bbs.typhoon.gov.cn to support your point. Please recognize the English Wikipedia's rules on reliable sourcing and verifiability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be a completely layman for typhoon that impact China or even for tropical cyclone, so you should have no right to remove my edit. All of my resources originated from China Meteorological Agency, and I can translate the name of these books into English. If you are not a layman for typhoon, you would not say "There are indeed sources concerning this in English that are accessible online", no there are not especially for the discuss of characteristics and from the authority, remember that she's a 1970s typhoon, and nearly all you can find on the internet in English introduced about her impact to such as Philliphines and Korea, but not north China.

I have already invited the preview editor(Cyclonebiskit) of this topic to join the discuss, as you may not have good knowledge of typhoon. I have the right to restore my post, and I think it's the matter between I and him. I think at least he may agree me for not just using JMA's judgement about the tropical characteristic.

I have just registered for 2 days so I cannot upload files yet, I temporarily used the external link. This radar image is valueble as I take photos of it on an old conference proceedings.

By the way, many typhoon's topics are under the whole years typhoon season's items and much of their introdutions are just 1 to 2 sentences without so-called "reliable" source. BeijingCup (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry to be impolite. But I really can't imagine that one volunteer can judge all the cases (various from air pollution to the tropical cyclone). Therefore, why don't you at least just put the mark"unreliable sourced" as wiki suggested instead of simply remove it? I would rather remind you that at least I have the right to modify the first section form just showing JMA's ideas on the tropical characteristic problem, in which case I would only use resources that have been already cited before. BeijingCup (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just find 2 web links for papers written in English that mentioned Rita's impact to China, and that's all I can do now. (Again I'm sorry for my impolite words.) BeijingCup (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]