This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving 2011 Christchurch earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 February 2011. | ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 22, 2013, February 22, 2017, and February 22, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Narehsahakian.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 28 external links on 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4711158/Tuesday-quake-no-aftershock((dead link))
tag to http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4706888/Christchurch-Art-Gallery-built-to-highest-standard((dead link))
tag to http://www.newser.com/article/d9lhl4p80/strong-earthquake-strikes-christchurch-new-zealand-killing-at-least-65.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
In reference to your reversion of my edits: I think that if I had to seek permission everytime I updated earthquake data or sources it would take me five times as long. But now that you have objected, fine, let us attend to your education.
Please note: your "local reliable source" is not the ultimate authority. That would be the reviewed value of the International Seismological Centre (read it), which, per the citation I included, does say "6.1". (With which the ANSS concurs. See the links provided.) That "6.2" is "long established" in the article is of no significance, it is still not what the most definitive source states.
If you will examine the ISC's Event Index (click on "2010-2018", then scroll down to "2011-20-21") you will see that they reckon two notable events, an M 6.1 at 2011-02-21 23:51:42, and then just 12 minutes later an M 5.5 at 2011-02-22 00:04:17. At least 36 scientific articles discuss the second event, so it is not a run of the mill aftershock. Though I generally oppose lists of aftershocks, I think any aftershock with its own scientific bibliography warrants at least a mention. That this earthquake was actually a double-header seems significant enough to mention in the article, but I leave that to your discretion.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: "let us attend to your education." Don't be so fucking patronising. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: Indeed. To call Geonet a non-reliable source smacks of extreme arrogance. You might want to consider how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia. Schwede66 04:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
call Geonet a non-reliable source"; that is outright misquotation, and you might want to take more care in your reading. I do say that Geonet is certainly more reliable than any newspaper, and can speak with an authority based on unquestioned professional competence, but that is not the essential point here. What I said is that it is not the ultimate authority. And if either of you would trouble to read about the ISC you might understand why their reviewed values are considered definitive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: You are not getting any nicer. Oh well! Your first edit hijacked the existing references which was not a very good thing to do - you really do need to take the time and care to do things properly. It is not clear to me why a non governmental orgaisation producing a meta analysis of earthquake reports should be considered any more reliable (or definitive) than the local on the spot scientific experts Perhaps you can provide us with some RS confirming that the ISC is considered such. It is also unclear to me when the ISC meta analysis was created - it appears undated and seems confused by several facts they should have known about, such as the number of those killed - facts that have been well established since 2011. Anyway it does not really matter much as 6.1 is very nearly 6.2 (and I know the scale is logarithmic) a similarity closer than might reasonably be expected with analysis produced for different reasons and different methods. When two reliable references are different like this on Wikipedia you can either present the commonality and the differences of both(all) - or come up with some way of representing this in an encyclopaedic way. Remember this is an encyclopaedia not a scientific journal and absolute pedantic accuracy is not necessary. On Wikipedia we are guided by the references - the references tend to say the Earthquake was on magnitude 6.3 or 6.2, the ISC says 6.1. I personally think 6.2 is a good figure appropriate for an encyclopaedia, It covers the scientific reliable sources and is not radically different from the majority of other sources.
My comment about the aftershocks was that you have picked one aftershock out of literally hundreds of significant aftershocks that could feasably be listed. In my view listing just one is misguided and confusing to readers. Aftershock are dealt with in detail within the article and should be left to be dealt with there. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why a non governmental organisation producing a meta analysis of earthquake reports should be considered any more reliable (or definitive) than the local on the spot scientific experts– that shows both a broad lack of knowledge, and an unwillingness to correct that lack. (I can help with the former, but have no patience for the latter.) Item I referred you to the article on the ISC, which explains some of what you are asking, but it appears you have not troubled to do. So why should I go to more trouble to provide more sources when you won't use what is provided already? Item: why you should – and seismological authorities do — consider the ISC reviewed results more definitive is because, first, that is their specialty (and mission), and second, they incorporate all of data available. Item: they don't do a "meta-analysis" of other agency's results, they recalculate from the original data. Item: being "
on the spot" does NOT improve the determination of large magnitudes, but can even impair it, due to "near-field" effects. (Lookitup.)
several facts they should have known about, such as the number of those killed", but that is NOT the kind of data for which they are authoritative; they include that only for general context. Item: this is not a matter of contending sources. Other organizations produce results that are preliminary and possibly constrained by various conditions; the ISC weighs all of the available data to provide the best result. Item: it is not in your competence to arbitrarily decide that another figure is better.
picked one aftershock out of literally hundreds of significant aftershocks". That is one event, identified as a distinct event (not merely an aftershock) by the ISC, and which some seismologists suspect reflects a pause in the propagation of the rupture, with great significance on the magnitude of the quake. Of the thousands of aftershocks, it is, as I said before, the only "aftershock" with a significant scientific bibliography. Leave it out of the article if you don't understand it, but let's have it understood that you have mischaracterized both the event, and the basis for including it.
hijack[ing] the existing references"; I was saving the edits I had made while I figured out how to integrate a new reference into the existing hodge-podge of references. And then had an edit conflict because you couldn't wait to undo my edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
used some language that is rather antagonistic." What? That I was willing to "
attend to [his] education"? By his own words he is – how should I say this? – lacking in certain information? That I was willing to help him remedy that: how is that "antagonistic"? Is that any more antagonistic than your and Andrew's comments of "
fucking patronizing" and "
smacks of arrogance"?
Please note: your "local reliable source" is not the ultimate authority. That would be the reviewed value of the International Seismological Centre (read it), ....
So why should I go to more trouble to provide more sources when you won't use what is provided already?" I have explained why the ISC's reviewed data is generally considered the most authoritative (because they use all of the globally available data, and because that is their special mission). But you are not really interested in that, as evidenced by your continuing disparagement of me and the ISC. You say "
we saw no RS evidence", but is that my fault for not offering such (though when I did you objected that I was being patronizing), or your fault for not bothering to look? Not that that matters much, as your concern is quite evidently less about the sources and more about disparaging me. Which does not further WP, and isn't really going to soothe your hurt feelings. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone wikilinked Richter scale in the "Aftershocks" section. I point out that the Local- and Moment-magnitude articles are somewhat technical. For giving a general reader a brief description of a scale, and (perhaps more importantly) comparing it with other scales, it is better to link to the appropriate section at Seismic magnitude scales. This is done automatically if you use the ((M)) template with the |link=y
parameter. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A new analysis has shown the extreme peak ground accelerations measured during the earthquake were exaggerated by loose foundations in the building housing the instruments. I've updated the infobox and the intensity part of the article, but someone with more knowledge should edit the passages that put these figures in worldwide context. Here are the references:
- Gobeirne (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The lead section says that the earthquake costed $77 Billion dollars and neither citation provides the number $77 billion. The news article says it 'will cost over 10 billion' as it was written soon after the earthquake and the insurance magazine says it cost insurers 22 billion. The list of disasters by cost has the same problem. Please cite sources for this number or I will remove it. - Watch Atlas791 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)