Talk:1931 China floods

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers High‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Floods High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as High-importance).

Historic times (old debate)

I'm not sure that 1931 counts as "historic times".

As in recorded history - not prehistoric times. Warofdreams 10:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It still strikes me as awkward. Maybe "recorded natural disaster" rather than "natural disaster of historic times".
  - I say we keep it. I do not find it awkward, but rather an interesting tidbit. --SaulPerdomo

it was bad but is over so if you dont like the page wikipedia has writen go write your own or simply look on another website 1931 was over 7 decades ago and id call that history ( histroic ) but then again i dont know 203.59.165.244 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC) bella[reply]

So little detail?

Why the heck is this such a small page? If it's the most deadly disaster in human history, why does it have a stub of information?

I find that quite odd... --Mattthemutt 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Yeah, that is a bit strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.237.251 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the death toll estimates vary so wildly? Were political forces at work - pro-communists in China trying to downplay, and anti-communist westerners trying to inflate? I honestly am just guessing here. 145,000 - 4 million is quite a range. If the Chinese are right, this wouldn't crack the top 10 of deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Rachaella (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginable canard

The unsourced 10-40millions deadly 1931 Huanghe flood did not really happen.The only verifiable are several majors floods in China of Yangtze river,[[Huai river] but not Huang river,and the death toll is about 400,000 not 40 millions.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good page

I find it strange that what is deemed probably the worst natural disaster in history has such a poor wikipedia page. I suppose it is fair to assume that the Chinese government has made it difficult to pull facts out of this disaster, which is why despite it being comparatively recent for the record books the death estimates range so greatly. Does the page reflect just how little is known about the tragedy? Should that be mentioned, perhaps?

Apart from that a general tidy up seems like it could be useful as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.168.158 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why there's so little information?

As I have seen the wiki page about the topic, I think Chinese government has made it difficult to pull facts out of this disaster. And also the death toll is varying greatly ( around 4 million ). If the data is correct, why the information is so less as it is most deadliest disaster in recent. 2409:4081:E13:C5E3:E4C4:618D:990:E5B (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no clear estimate of the loss of life in this article

2600:6C5D:42F0:4970:91E:8F33:9927:1283 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]