Talk:1960 Valdivia earthquake: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:46, 30 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1960 Valdivia earthquake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chile Start‑class High‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earthquakes B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects 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.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Start‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:1960 Valdivia earthquake is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP LoCE

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 22, 2007, May 22, 2009, May 22, 2010, and May 22, 2012.

Dating problem

Hi--am I reading this wrong? It seems to say the earthquake of May 22 was preceded by a smaller earthquake on May 22? Somebody working on this might want to double-check.

71.198.88.169 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone misread "preceded" and changed the date from May 21 to May 23. After checking [the USGS], I've corrected the date.Buss 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude scales

Hi there, because of new interest in earthquake scales caused by large quakes at the end of 2004, I'm highlighting the Moment magnitude scale and the Richter magnitude scale. If I've screwed up, feel free to correct.

The Richter scale stops working at the high end of the scale. It "saturates", according to the above two linked articles. So it's best to avoid mentioning it for a very big earthquake such as this one. -- Curps 21:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References

I think a verbatim quote of external references could be a copyright violation. I removed those from that section. Please, summarize in article, instead. Awolf002 14:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about the Hawai'i events link. I find no reference to a Magnitude 16.____ event on that site and do not know of what scale any event would register that high on (Richter, moment, etc.). In any event, all magnitude and intensities should have scale names associated with them to make them of any value.

Volcano

I removed the claim that a volcano erupted because of this earthquake. Please, provide reference before adding this. Awolf002 21:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true.200.74.188.7 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was true... The Puyehue volcano erupted two days after the earthquake. [1] --KRATK 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

I was surprised to read that the majority of casualties were caused by tsunamis. I had been told that it was landslides that caused most deaths. Any references?

According to the USGS report [2]referenced in the article there were only 61 deaths from the tsunami, this is a direct contradiction of the article.Moheroy 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your conclusion. The ref'ed article says "61 deaths in Hawaii" (and 138 in Japan, etc). I will rv to the previous version, since it seems "more precise" in its "estimates". Awolf002 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is strong on the geophysical aspects of the event but there is not much info about what happend afterwards. What was the damage caused to society in Chile and elsewhere? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Picture and Tsunami Info

What is the relevance of the picture of the volcano in this article? Also is there an article on the following tsunami. If not i propose one should be started or information about the tsunami be added to the article.

The picture is still there and asking for an explanation. I know nothing about the issue, so I'm not game to make a random edit like removing the picture or inventing an explanation, but something should be done imho. Deuar 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this picture from the article to the talk page because the article doesn't even mention the volcano in question. If someone more knowledgeable about the topic knows what the connection is and wants to write it into the article, please do so. 青い(Aoi) 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is relevant. The Puyehue Volcano erupted 48 hours after the main earthquake as result of the shock: "The last eruption of Puyehue-Cordon de Caulle volcanic complex is linked to the 1960 Valdivia earthquake." here and The Puyehue volcano erupted forty-seven hours after the main shock. here --KRATK 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for article move - Renaming discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this discussion was move to 1960 Valdivia earthquake. -- Awolf002 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article moved? Where was this discussed? Awolf002 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know, but it is maybe time to discuss the name. Using Great Chilean Earthquake is somewhat missleading as far from all of Chile was affected. Then i also think Earthquake should not be capitalized, because it is not on most other earthquake articles. In my current opinion is that 1960 Valdivia earthquake is the most correct name, just like 1755 Lisbon earthquake (and not Great Portugese Earthquake). 1960 Valdivia earthquake is also closer to the spanish name es:Terremoto de Valdivia de 1960. So if Great Chilean Earthquake is not too widespread and used in the English language 1960 Valdivia earthquake should be used. Dentren | ^Talk 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This very well reasoned. I think, if we do not find Great Chilean Earthquake used mainly in English publications, we should use 1960 Valdivia earthquake. Let me see what I can find... Awolf002 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, superficially "Great Chilean Earthquake" wins with 10,300 entries over "1960 Valdavia Earthquake" with 176. However, when counting the scientific papers on the first three pages (thus ignoring WP and clones and popular science sites), you get about the same number (7 vs. 8). What should we conclude? Awolf002 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree.. but with or without capilized Earthquake? Dentren | ^Talk 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be 'e', since it is not a proper noun per WP:MOS#Article_titles. Awolf002 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else chimes in, I will move this article to the agreed upon name 1960 Valdavia earthquake. Anybody? Awolf002 (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why the hell do you guys care about whether earthquake is capitalized or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.225 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epicenter loction

In the map of the article the epicenter is in Contulmo rather than Valdivia. As fas I know there was a series of earthquakes with epicenters along a north-south line but which epicenter is considered "the epicenter"? Valdivia was probably the most affected city but it doesnt mean that the strongest or first epicenter was there. do somebody know something about it? Dentren | ^Talk 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifice

Disaster would not leave Chile alone. Attempting to placate the gods they held responsible for the continuing quakes in southern Chile, Mapuche Indians last week beat a six-year-old boy to death with sticks, tore out his heart and offered it to the sea. When police arrested two of the Indians, they explained: "We were asking for calm in the sea and on the earth."

Obviously, this source text from the TIME ref does not match what is currently in the article, which is in itself attributed to The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice (1989) ISBN 9780140139747 Can we get confirmation on this? Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable and in the right context? This story is mentioned in the author's wiki, it does not seem to be notable enough to duplicate it here. Awolf002 (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is missing some info like that it was caused by the nazac plate moving

That is already said under "Tectonic interpretation" Dentren | ^Talk 15:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

900km or 435miles? These are not equivalent... 86.9.207.208 (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/world/1960_05_22_articles.html
- In 1960 Valdivia earthquake on 2011-05-25 03:42:12, 404 Not Found
- In 1960 Valdivia earthquake on 2011-06-04 19:01:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.tercera.cl/medio/articulo/0,0,3255_5666_106009196,00.html
- In 1960 Valdivia earthquake on 2011-05-25 03:42:12, 404 Not Found
- In 1960 Valdivia earthquake on 2011-06-04 19:01:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{WikiProject Geology|class=Start|importance=High}}
 }}
-{{WP LoCE|January 2010}}
+{{WP LoCE|January 2007|[[User:Galena11|Galena11]]}}
 {{OnThisDay|date1=2007-05-22|oldid1=132715466|date2=2009-05-22|oldid2=291359982|date3=2010-05-22|oldid3=363342400|date4=2012-05-22|oldid4=493892221}}