Talk:1812 San Juan Capistrano earthquake

Earthquakes Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Inland Empire / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Inland Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progress

I made a ton of improvements to the article this year, but it's nowhere near finished. I still hope to be able to add more material down the road sometime. Dawnseeker2000 00:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comment on the challenges of using a primary source

The second source illustrates several problems in the source itself, its use, and the use of primary sources in general.

For starters, the source is not Kerry Sieh. He may have been the actual source and authority of the magnitude stated, but we don't cite individuals, we cite the paper, as published (which implies it has passed the usual editorial standards and review process). And the paper is "Irregular Recurrence of Large Earthquakes....", conventionally referred to as "Jacoby, Sheppard, and Sieh, 1988", or even "Jacoby et al. 1988". One of the benefits of using {Harv} is that it encourages this standard author-year naming, while a detriment of "named-refs" (and also {sfn}) is that WP editors have gotten into the bad habit grabbing just any likely string for use with named-refs.

This source is problematical in itself because the only place they mention a 7.5 magnitude is in the abstract. Abstracts are supposed to summarize the body, but as far as I have been able to determine – and I downloaded a searchable copy from Science – they don't mention a 7.5 magnitude anywhere else. They do mention "about 7.1" and 7.9 on page 197 (third column), but that is for the 21 December shock. For the 8 Dec. shock they mention (p. 198) "such an earthquake" – meaning one with 12 km of surface rupture – "would have been about M_w  ~6.0 (21)." They then argue that "Other evidence suggests that the earthquake was larger", that M_w  ≥ 6.5 is "likely". They cite some other evidence, and further argue that if it is correct then the 8 Dec. quake would have been ≥ 7.0. Note: they are not determining the magnitude of that quake, they are presenting various estimates of the magnitude of that quake (and others) as evidence for their hypothesis: the irregular recurrence of large earthquakes.

The foregoing illustrates a major challenge of working with primary sources: it is often unclear to non-experts what they are stating as settled science, as presumptions for an argument, and the conclusion they are arguing for. Furthermore, publication is not necessarily settled science; it is presentation of work for consideration. Unfortunately, science does not have (generally) juries appointed to decide such matters, and certainly not official "verdicts" on each item. The expression of scientific consensus is usually found in the secondary or tertiary sources, such as Stover and Coffman (1993). Note that S&C present several sources (which might be worth examining), but not Jacoby et al. For all of the above I say that Jacoby et al. is not a suitable source here regarding magniutde, that it is best to stick with the numerous catalogs.

A final comment: when I changed the scale I would have liked to specify the page (72) in S&C where the scale is stated. With short-cites (like with {Harv}) this is easy. With named-refs the only option is the ugly, non-standard WP-ecentric {rp}, which readers generally don't understand. More reason for using short-cites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Painful to read

Very difficult for a non-geologist to parse this out. Too much jargon. Too much detail. I would simplify this tremendously interesting article, but the task looks daunting. I hope somebody else can take on the task. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am perhaps not entirely qualified as a non-geologist to see any problems. Perhaps you could point out some jargon and details you think should be left out? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mid-expansion at the moment. I did quite a bit this year, but lost focus due to the challenge, and I do have the intention of writing a bit more. It's still nowhere near complete, but I wouldn't recommend removing detail. The tag really isn't appropriate as all technical articles will leave some readers behind, but no one would learn a thing if articles were minimalisitic. But again, it's not finished, but the intention is to come back and connect all the dots (tie all the ideas together). Dawnseeker2000 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I can help you with? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I lost focus after this summer's expansion, it was because I came across additional sources that I hadn't originally had, and so it was the additional and unexpected complexity that I was having to plan for. And since I didn't immediately have a strategy on how to integrate the new material, I was going to take some time to study the sources and layout, but got sidetracked studying for a certification in July and August and never picked it back up again because of an unexpected event in September. I really don't like things sitting around half done, but I'm planning on getting back on track. Just need to find the energy & focus. This one is not straightforward, but I think it'll be great when finished. Thank you for the offer. Dawnseeker2000 06:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate: there is so much to do. You know where to find me if you need help. (And then, after we have good laugh...) BTW, should we ping BeenAround for instances of what he thinks are problems? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought about asking. I can imagine what the perceived issues might be, but anyone reading the article at this stage just needs to know that its in an early stage. I've been able to get the bulk of the material added, but my experience shows that once that is finished, there are several rounds of copy edits to be made. Go ahead if you'd like @BeenAroundAWhile:. Dawnseeker2000 01:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to edited and ran, but what the hell, let's ping him. @BeenAroundAWhile: you said there is "Too much jargon. Too much detail." Perhaps you could list some instances of this jargon and detail for our consideration? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin Hills blind thrust

According to, among others, this source, an abrupt uplift event on the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault — the known source of a minor SJC quake in 2012 — in which the ground rose by as much as 20 feet very quickly, occurred between 1635 and 1855. 1812 is within that error margin. 107.202.104.48 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]