Jump to content

Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Depth

Where are you getting a 5.9 km depth? USGS reports is as 1km.

I think someone must have confused magnitude and depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.225.203 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The USGS site lists it as a 6km depth. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082311a.php --Daenris (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Felt in Wisconsin

Sadly it's OR as we cannot independently report it, but our Madison, Wisconsin, office's building was shaken by this. --Golbez (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You can always report impact to the USGS (the earthquake is already specified in form, just fill in the info queried. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are currently reports of the earthquake being felt in Quebec, Canada, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine in addition to the mainstream media confirmed locations appearing in this article.

Well, I'm in Michigan, and I didn't feel anything. Seleucus (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Other areas affected

We should mention that this quake affected several states on the east coast, including PA, NY, NJ, MA, etc. This made national news on major news stations, including CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, etc. I am from NJ and we felt a tremble in our house. It was scary, since it is very rare to have earthquakes in this part of the country. – Tinton5 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in Cincinnati, Ohio, and my co-workers and I felt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.114.201 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is currently on the major news stations, btw. North Carolina, Detroit, MI, Georgia, and Chicago, IL were also affected. — Tinton5 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd... I'm in Michigan, very close to Detroit, and I felt absolutely nothing. Seleucus (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in Ann Arbor, and all of the people around my office on the second floor felt it, though no one that I talked to on the first floor did. --Daenris (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the same city, and apparently I'm just horrifically unobservant... Seleucus (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was in Toronto when it happened and the whole crew at ground level felt it. I have heard first hand reports of people feeling the tremors in North Bay, Ontario and Fredericton, New Brunswick. --Sleepingbear (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Was it felt in the Caribbean or Bermuda at all? CrazyC83 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Places

Do we really need a list? It was felt in lots of places. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just say across the Northeast and Midwest? Agrdeuce (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say Washington, D.C. should be mentioned since it's the nearest major city to experience structural damage. Other than that, I'd pinpoint the furthest location from the epicenter of the quake that people reported shaking, then say, "It was felt up to X miles away."Scarfo787 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The quake was felt as far away as London, England! Can someone ad that(idk how)? hers's a source: http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/08/23/18590771.html. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Program13001207 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

London, Ontario? If there is a list of affected places, I think it is pretty ridiculous that it should cover Canada and NYC (which were ~300mi away) but not North Carolina (~100mi). In the long run, however, having a section regarding the damage in each region is perhaps too much.Kjsharke (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with you Kjsharke...NC definitely needs a space or many others shouldn't be listed. I think it should be a more general statement as others have suggested- as far away as somewhere or all over the east coast or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.17.75 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia home page

How has this not hit the home page?Dogru144 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It will by tonight --Guerillero | My Talk 18:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's homepage is usually the first place where I hear about things like this, but I actually heard about this on television... so either Wikipedia is slow or I'm unusually fast today. ;P--Sean Quixote (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this deserves a home page entry... 5.8 earthquake is quite small, and it hasn't caused many macroscopic events, besides a lot of people being concerned over it... normally, front page earthquakes are 7-8+ in magnitude. Seleucus (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it does as the earthquake might have been 5.9 - 6.0 earthquake according to the USGS it is unusual for an earthquake to be on the east coast but this was felt from South Carolina, to Toronto Canada, including Ohio. The last earthquake that strong to happen here on the east coast happened in the 1800's. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I second this notion, it is a once in a century earthquake that occured, we are not talking Calafornia here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ITN

This article has been nominated for In the News: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Virginia_Earthquake

Extra sources

Impact

Should we report airport closures and evacuations of government buildings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.152.139 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement under US regarding buildings' resistance to seismic activity should be removed. International Building Code requires buildings to be constructed according to their seismic zone. This is reflected in the lack of damage to buildings that has been reported. Also the statement is vague and without source. --Chris.matt (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Before "The quake damaged three of the...", the words "In Washington, DC..." should be added to parallel with the rest of the Impact section. --Chris.matt (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Return period

It's noteworthy that, according to my analysis of the USGS data available, the DC area experienced a peak ground acceleration of between 2 and 6 percent g. Whereas the USGS hazard map indicates a 2% probability that the DC area will experience a 6%g peak ground acceleration in 50 years, it can be concluded that parts of DC and northern VA experienced seismic effects that have a return period of 2,475 years! (this is based on the highest peak ground acceleration in the DC area, as measured in a station at Arlington, with a max accel. of 6.32%g) (2% in 50 years = once every 2,475 years). This statement should be qualified with the fact that a return period doesn't mean we will have another in 2,475 years. It's only a statement of probability. --Chris.matt (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above analysis, it should be noted that I'm an engineer, not a seismologist. This claim should be verified by someone equally or more knowledgeable before posting. Thank you --Chris.matt (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not enough to have a reference for the data which is the starting point of your analysis. You need to have a reference that reports the results of the analysis for this particular earthquate. Otherwise, the analysis is original reseach, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Time

The correct time was 1:51pm EST - not 2:12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/se082311a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmoll (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The time should be 1:51pm EDT, not EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.134.5 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can an admin protect the article? It has been subject of vandalism multiple times in the last minutes. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch. I second this. Scxnwa (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection is desperately needed. Link (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to whomever protected the article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin instate full protection until news sources are 'stabilised' and rumours, personal stories, vandalism stop. Too many edits with uncredible/changing sources. Also, many, many edit conflicts Rooboy715 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thats not one of the few reasons full protection can be used--Guerillero | My Talk 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Really, persistent vandalism, edit conflicts with hundreds of edits occurring doesn't merit full protection until things settle down ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooboy715 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Washington Monument tilting

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/aug/23/picket-fnc-reports-washington-monument-may-be-tilt/ Piercewater (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article: "Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly reported at 2:30 pm that their bureau received information from a producer saying that a Captiol Hill Police officer says that the Washington Monument may actually be tilting as a result of the earthquake."
I think that's about as good an example of hearsay as one could want, and the phrase "may actually be" adds a nice touch of additional uncertainly. Let's wait for something a bit more, umm, authoritative. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to be so condescending about it. You could have said "Sorry, this is not an acceptable source at this time" and left it at that. Piercewater (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not allowed for any source, last I checked.Lord Nordeck (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You mad brah? 76.21.148.50 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I can honestly say I had a good laugh on behalf of that quote. But on a serious note, we'll have to wait for a source that's a bit more credible. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 05:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude

It seems like the USGS has downgraded it to a 5.8. Not too sure; the news is reporting the downgrading, but USGS has not updated its page. --DMP47 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of sources are reporting it as a 6.0 earthquake. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the USGS has officially released it as 5.9 (though news sources have updated that number) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/se082311a.html --DMP47 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I am just being the devil's advocate here. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
USGS page reports it as 5.8 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082311a.php --Daenris (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huge amount of edit conflicts

I can't seem to add info about more affected areas, since the large amount of edit conflicts. If anyone reads this, please fill in that Florida, New Jersey, Georgia, and others not mentioned. Also, airport delays could be added? Tinton5 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources please? --Guerillero | My Talk 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This site shows reports: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/events/se/082311a/us/index.html --DMP47 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Added airport delays. --Scxnwa (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Were New Hampshire and Maine affected?? Tinton5 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nova Scotia felt it too, looking for reliable source now. Ivtv (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalizing nonsense

The quake has been downgraded agin to 5.8. Yet someone keeps using a blog to source the comment that this is the largest quake in VA history. It is not, see the USGS site. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait till the craze is over in an hour --Guerillero | My Talk 19:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does this even have its own page? It's a non-event and will be forgotten in 2 days. --TruckOttr (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? -- Veggy (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Because this is gossipy Wikipedia. 63.118.154.94 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A point made all the better by your whining. -- Veggy (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Add about President in Martha's Vineyard/cell phones were down too

Should we insert that President Obama was vacationing here when the earthquake occured? Tinton5 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we add that cell phones and social media were affected? Tinton5 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. no. it has no bearing on the event.
  2. IFF it was covered by sources --Guerillero | My Talk 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Source: already on page (for cell phone communications): http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8322211 Tinton5 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many "felt as far away as..."

I propose to reduce the number of states/provinces named in the first sentence of the Impact section. Rather than name pretty much every sourced place, how about naming only those which are the furthest away in every resepctive direction. It does say, after all, "as far away as...".

For example, since Massachusetts is named, Rhode Island is redundant, as it is closer to the epicenter than Massachusetts. Likewise South Caralina and North Carolina.

Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That would look cleaner. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just tried to do this but was edit conflicted with someone who did. Looks good. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah!

The last time I edited this, it had only one sentence and ref. What happened?Mike 289 19:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia ;) Ivtv (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

zomg catfish fight. Soup to come afterwards :-) . 198.151.130.33 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Really this is very strange to me. I have never seen an article whicle demonstates all of wikipedia's rules. (Well, most of them.:P)Mike 289 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing. There's absolutely no order on Wikipedia. People are allowed to do anything and write anything so long as it's backed up by and in accordance with a 'rule' that some 'editor' makes up on the spot in order to justify it. This site is turning more into a glossy gossip magazine than an actual source for information. I see someone has already indicated a need to remove this article for lack of importance, but something tells me someone will just fight it with some weak argument that undoubtedly will go unabated. 63.118.154.94 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

hey 63.118.154.94 gp make your own relaible wiki if you think you know better. Then post back. I'll wait here. Ivtv (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AliveWithBrooke, 23 August 2011

The earthquake has now been confirmed to be a 5.9 if you don't feel comfortable changing it please add both numbers in. To verify you can look it up on the epicenter site or even the news stations ( like CNN ). 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC) AliveWithBrooke (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mike 289 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/23/virginia.quake/index.html

An earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 5.9 struck Tuesday near the nation's capital and sent shock waves up and down the East Coast Ivtv (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The USGS is reporting that the earthquake was magnitude 5.8: [1] Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a negative - it's a 5.9. --Son (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that news outlets rely on the USGS to measure the severity of earthquakes, do you have a source to back up a different figure than what they are reporting? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Check your own link. You'll see it says 5.9. --Son (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope, still 5.8, even after clearing my cache. It was initially reported as 5.8, then upgraded to 5.9, but then downgraded back to 5.8 again a little while ago. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright somebody put all three claims.Mike 289 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Those claims are actually for the 1987 event. Most news sources look like they're updating their articles to reflect the magnitude 5.8 measurement now. I've updated the reference titles of some. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about the locale of the earthquake

Why is Canada listed in the countries or regions section of the article where the earthquake took place? It happened in the U.S., not Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.108.79 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FixedMike 289 20:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the same issue still persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.108.79 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed again. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It was felt in Canada also, multiple reliable news sources say. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was felt in Canada. Nobody is denying that. The earthquake occurred in the U.S. though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.108.79 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Use your eyes and read that the template says "countries affected". Canada was affected therefore it is added. Got it? Also remember to sign your comments. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to be rude and condescending about it. Lord Nordeck (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems I've hit quite a nerve there. It says "countries or regions" not "affected" The earthquake happened in the U.S. not Canada. Adding it there is just false information. There's a whole section of the article just for the tremors felt in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.108.79 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this page really need to exist?

There are earthquakes that occur every day in the world and go without Wikipedia page. Why the need here? It seems like Wiki[edia is turning into a place for the gossipy yentas to throw up a page that gets edited and re-edited. No major reports of damage, no injuries, no deaths. Where's the importance? And then Wikipedia has the nerve to send out donation requests to keep its servers running when in fact, it could go without these excess articles. 63.118.154.94 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The importance is that this is one of the most, if not the most significant seismic event ever recorded in the Virginia Seismic Zone. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if this earthquake had occurred in Antarctica, it would not be notable. But Wikipedia exists to meet the needs of the public. Tens of millions of people felt it, and (for instance) might want to know the exact location (cable news gives "near Mineral, VA") or see some photos of fallen brickwork (cable news gives blurry video). Speciate (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete template, please stop trolling

Whoever is requesting to delete this article, could you please have a little bit of common sense? This is one of the strongest earthquakes felt in the East Coast in history. Stop requesting deletion. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally nommed per WP:NOTNEWS, closed as speedy keep, but later reopened. To be clear it was not nommed multiple times. To call it "trolling" would be an obtuse response regardless the situation atm. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the kind of stuff that bothers me to no end. It turns out there is a commonsensical addition like this article which relates to a very important and historic event and then someone in need of attention decided that it was a good idea to start a "discussion" for whether the article should stay or not. I bet you they do it just because they like to stir the pot and have people debating. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like the community to know that a user has accused me of a "personal attack" here:User_talk:Camilo_Sanchez#Please_refrain_from_personal_attacks for my addition here [2]. I am not personally attacking the User, I am asking him why. Why try to delete an article of such importance. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Some people who post about personal attacks are total whiners, just ignore it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this earthquake from a global standpoint, it's borderline notable. Following the proposed notability criteria for earthquake articles, it wasn't sufficiently damaging, there were no deaths but it was the largest for more than a hundred years in the state, so I would vote to keep it at any AfD on that basis. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the quake's notability, a substantial sum of people turn to Wikipedia to obtain up-to-date information on the event as details emerge. Minutes after I felt it myself and found out about the event from the USGS, I got online to see if someone had created the article yet. And, sure enough, it was there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup... of course, people should be turning to Wikinews for up-to-date information, and not Wikipedia (think about it... if computers had never been invented, which paper source would you expect to have up-to-date info about yesterday's earthquake... the Encyclopedia Britannica or today's news paper?)... but that is another issue.
Personally, I believe that when something like this happens, we should simply create a stub that says "An earthquake just took place near Washington DC... as an encyclopedia, our job is not to relay the latest breaking news... our job is to discuss the event with a historical perspective. Please be patient while we figure out what is important to mention and what isn't. In the meantime... for the latest breaking news on the earthquake, please go to our sister project: Wikinews." (or something like that)... Then we should lock the article for at least one week. However, I do understand that my take on this is not the majority view. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jrapo, 23 August 2011

Earthquakes magnitude was actually 5.9 and not 5.8 as stated in the text. This was adjusted by USGS moments after the initial report. Jrapo (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And then it was adjusted back down to 5.8 a while later. See the USGS report. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact in Illinois?

I saw on MSNBC that the quake went even further than Detroit, in Illinois. — Tinton5 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Try googling virginia quake felt in illinois. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bull's eye map

Can someone more experienced with templates restore the bull's eye location map to the infobox, retaining also the current blu local map? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Virginia_earthquake&diff=446361676&oldid=446361640 for the old bull's eye. People not familiar with the area will find the local map alone less than helpful. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - I wasn't sure whether there should be a caption for the shake map or a label for the location map, I added both but have no problem if you want to remove them. Mikenorton (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.2.103.17, 23 August 2011

Epicenter of quake was at Mineral, VA.

108.2.103.17 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree this should be spelled out. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Epic center - Got a LOL out of this at least76.21.148.50 (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proper place to comment

In response to the questions above about why the article is not on the front page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Virginia_Earthquake is the proper place to express your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone

The article is now up on the front page. This article is very informative and looks great! μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se/en/201108/2011_Virginia_earthquake μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wanted: Image of the National Cathedral

If anyone living in the DC area couldd upload a picture of the damage to the Cathedral--or anyone has an pictures of any damage--it would help improve the article. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As far south as...Augusta, GA?

Supposedly this earthquake was felt in areas of Augusta, GA, though this is currently according to unreliable sources. Of course, I'll try to pull up some reliable sources to back that up with before editing anything. Just throwing this out there to see if anyone else in the area can verify this, or if anyone can find sources before myself. - Bkid My talk/Contribs 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tennis tournament

According to a Serbian newspaper the match between Jelena Jankovic and Elena Vesnina was interrupted because of the earthquake. In Yale University, Connecticut, all matches were suspended after the earthquake created panic among the audience, who was immediately evacuated.

The tittle of the link says: The earthquake interrupted the match between Jelena and Vesnina, audience in panic left the stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The original source is here: http://sport.blic.rs/Tenis/202031/Zemljotres-prekinuo-mec-Jelene-i-Vesnine-gledaoci-u-panici-napustili-stadion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another article here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7NaBQMOmJBalWQPMqMxusFjVRGQ?docId=3f09e590c6824f889cf3eaf2433b2ab5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ESPN: Earthquake causes venue evacuation. --Stryn (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Damage to Washington D.C. Temple

This is far from the most important points of this article, but I've had to revert a few edits and need to explain this so as hopefully not to start an edit war. I added info to the article about the Washington D.C. Temple being damaged—losing the tips of its spires and marble from its facade—during the earthquake. The temple was built by and is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no other church which belongs to the Latter Day Saint movement (aka Mormonism) has anything to do with this temple. I originally didn't even list who owned the temple, another user did, but listed it as "the Church of Latter Day Saints," this is incorrect. The Church of Latter Day Saints is a historical name for the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr., but believe it or not there are numerous churches which claim to be this "one." After Smith died there were many break offs, and this name hasn't really been used since 1838 (173 years). Since only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has anything to do with this temple, this is specific and should be used. It is also important to note that the "The" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is capitalized, this is the official name of the church and a proper noun, thus it needs to be capitalized. Most of all this is laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, I thought I'd mention it here hoping to clarify and avoid any edit wars since there are already problems with edit conflicts.--Mangoman88 (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the reference with accompanying video (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=16937670&autostart=y), only the tips (about 4 inches in diameter and 3 or 4 feet tall) of 4 of the spires fell the the ground. I feel like the way the article reads is misleading and appears as if 4 entire spires fell to the ground, as the height of the spires is significantly larger than 4 feet. Nathanlds (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes in the United States article needed

My commiserations on the effects of the quake. Here in Christchurch, New Zealand we have had earthquakes and aftershocks for almost a year. While this quake has grabbed attention by WP editors can I suggest that an Earthquakes in the United States article is written. It currently redirects to List of earthquakes in the United States, which would probably be better as a sortable wikitable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotsylvania fault

Do we have a reliable source for this? It wasn't in the source cited - I searched and only found a couple of articles mentioning it, including this speculation on NPR. I would have thought if it was confirmed there would be a lot more reliable sources mentioning it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Pentagon with caption saying it was evacuated

The Pentagon was NOT evacuated. I work there. It wasn't evacuated. Some people were worried and went home, but it wasn't evacuated. Please correct the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortuntly we have a reliable source CNN saying that it was and that will be given more weight than a Wikipedia user.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reliable source from CNN is a reporter (it may have been a producer) that was there for a briefing at the Pentagon press room. They initially reported the Pentagon was evacuated because they and many other people left from there immediately after the quake. However, they were mistaken and, after that initial report, it was never again reported that the Pentagon was evacuated. Because it wasn't. I know because I work here, listened to the emergency announcements, and didn't leave. Even the corridor where the pipe burst wasn't evacuated; they simply told folks to stay in their offices while they cleaned it up. Weight sources however you like, but it is simply incorrect to say the Pentagon was evacuated. I know this is a minor point, but the article is less accurate if it says it was. If you'd like to verify, simply contact PFPA.

Here's a ref that goes into a bit more detail. [3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Geology section

Right now the intro is the geology section, and the rest of the article concerns reports of the aftermath. We need to get the detail of the geology in a new section, and make the intro more broad.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it will be some time (possibly a week or more) before geologists/seismologists look into the event in-depth and begin to release their findings to the public. For the time being, however, I think the article's fine as-is. Information pertaining to the historical significance of the event/aftermath has since been added to the intro. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.100.242.174, 24 August 2011

please remove the statement that says no damage was reported.

68.100.242.174 (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The only place I found it listing this is specific to Maine, which is sourced. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No injuries or deaths?

I'm about 30 miles north of the epicenter. Our local paper this morning reports that there were 2 people taken to the hospital with minor injuries in Culpeper, VA. No description of the cause or extent of the injuries(other than they were related to the earthquake). Is it worth including? The lede says "No injuries or deaths were reported". I'm thinking not, but I have the source if it's deemed worthwhile. Wikipelli Talk 13:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best, for the sake of accuracy, to mention that "only minor injuries have been reported", assuming you have a reliable source for the information. If you do, than feel free to add it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I just added information related to reported injuries in Culpeper (2) and Spotsylvania (6). Wikipelli Talk 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks. PRRfan (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Maryland?

I was working in Bethesda and live in Baltimore and it was felt strongly in both places. In fact two buildings in Baltimore collapsed due to the earthquake. It was felt all the way to the Eastern Shore.

Just thought is should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaAR (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Virginia_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=1146670707"