Jump to content

Talk:1960 Valdivia earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Smf7462.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dating problem

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)
Original Research, so, ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.21 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
The Puyehue Volcano eruption.

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

[edit]
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]

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]

Because consistency across articles is important, for one thing. I actually came here just to see if the "e" should be capitalized or not for something I am writing, so yes, it does matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.106.162.153 (talk • contribs) date

Epicenter loction

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

[edit]

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!

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

[edit]

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!

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

Magnitude & Reference

[edit]

USGS says it is 9.6. Should I edit it? Also the reference for the earthquake's magnitude needs to be added. Pubserv (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They give it as 9.5 [3]. Mikenorton (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/centennial19600522191117#summary Pubserv (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the link. It appears that there are range of estimates from about 9.4 to 9.6, depending on the method used to derive the magnitude. The 9.6 was first reported by Pacheco & Sykes, based on the seismic moment estimated by Cifuentes & Silver 1989. This was then used in the Centennial catalogue of Engdahl & Villasenor in 2002. Bufe & Perkins (2005), describe these different estimates, choosing to use the 9.5 value originally estimated by Kanamori (1977) for their own purposes. Satake and Atwater (2007) report the 9.4-9.6 range that I mentioned above, but quote 9.5 as being the " widely accepted number". So I don't think that there's anything wrong with using the 9.5 value here, but we should probably have the full range in the earthquake article itself. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like I need to add all those magnitude refs to the article, I should have done it a year ago. Mikenorton (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicate matters further the catalogue recently released by ICS-GEM [4] includes recalculations of location, depth and magnitude for all of the larger events (>7.5) over the period 1900-2009. This catalogue has the 1960 earthquake as 9.6, so I am minded to change the infobox value to that, but have a short section discussing the magnitude in the text. Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's true. Updated magnitude is 9.6Mw. See http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/centennial19600522191117#summary This source is newer than http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/events/1960_05_22.php You can actually see in the webpage's footer the date of its last modification. --Foschograph (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about events that have been studied by many individuals and groups (from many institutions) so to say one website makes anything true would be a gross oversimplification. To do the best service to the readers we really need to present a more substantial presentation than stating what the USGS says on their website. Dawnseeker2000 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, the USGS gives either 9.5 or 9.6 depending on which page you're looking at, the NGDC gives 9.5 [5], the Chilean catalogue gives 9.5 [6], the ICS-GEM catalogue gives 9.6, the IISEE catalogue gives 9.5, Finally to quote Satake & Atwater "The mainshock itself has a range of estimated sizes. Kanamori (1977) used 2×1023 Nm as an average estimate of seismic moment; the corresponding moment magnitude of 9.5 has become the widely accepted number. However, the seismic moments estimated from free oscillations and strain seismograms span the range 1–3×1023 Nm, equivalent to Mw 9.4–9.6 (Kanamori & Cipar 1974, Kanamori & Anderson 1975, Cifuentes 1989, Cifuentes & Silver 1989)." As I've said above the recently published catalogue gives a reason to lean towards the 9.6 figure where we want a single number, but otherwise we should just report the range with supporting citations. Mikenorton (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

[edit]

I'm intending to restructure the article and include more information on the scientific side of the earthquake, separating it from the description of the damage caused. This will cover the estimates of magnitude, depth, epicentre, foreshocks and aftershocks, the distribution of shaking, the details of the tsunami with run-ups the triggering of an eruption, the number and volumes of the landslides triggered by the earthquake and so on. The tectonic interpretation section needs rewriting and expanding as well. Comments welcome. Mikenorton (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1960 Valdivia 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:

When 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hhh

[edit]

@Awesome Aasim || Will you add the MMI template on here, or not yet? --a_liza aliza's chat, lila's chat/aliza's mess, lila's mess 18:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IiIa.1 Please do not ping people unless if it is urgent or unless if that person is involved in the discussion or in past discussions and may be interested.
I am probably going to hold off for now as if I make too many changes, it may cause problems in terms of consensus. So for now there are just the three pages that I manually added the template to, and that's it. If other editors don't have a problem with it, then maybe it can be expanded to other articles as well. Aasim (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Indonesia during 1960 tsunami

[edit]

Did Indonesia got affected by the tsunami ? Alvaro ivan daniswara (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pie chart clarification

[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding the pie chart. Does the line pointng to San Francisco mean that the SF earthquake is only a sliver of the contribution to the total seismic energy released? Philosophistry (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophistry, because the diagram was likely made by US people I understand the inclusion of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake as a reference point to get a grasp on the scales. I think your interpretation is right. Mamayuco (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longest earthquake ever?

[edit]

I think this is the longest earthquake in terms of duration, it lasted for 10 minutes. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. The most recent comment indicates the GA is a failure, but the GAN was never properly closed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1960 Valdivia earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting! I will get to this within seven days. Please note that I am returning to GA reviewing after an hiatus, so please WP:TROUT me if I make a mistake. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

Earwig Copyvio Detector says this is good to go.

Files

[edit]

TBD

Prose

[edit]

TBD

References

[edit]

TBD

  • Comment:
    • The second translation offered in the lead is not quite precise. "Great Chilean earthquake" would be "gran terremoto chileno". The Spanish term in the lead (and in the Spanish wiki) is "gran terremoto de Chile", which in English would be rendered "great earthquake of Chile".
    • The article title of the Spanish wiki refers to the event as the "megaterremoto de Valdivia de 1960" ("mega-earthquake of Valdivia of 1960"), but goes unmentioned in this English article. It ought to be mentioned as one of the alternative names at least.
    • The paragraph beginning with "A 2019 research paper postulates" is confusing. It mentions "previous and current more widely accepted" explanations for the earthquake's cause, but I can't find either one. Was there another explanation for the earthquake prior to the 2019 paper and, if so, can that also be mentioned and cited?
    • Presumably, the passage "which could help account for how the plate boundary event seemingly 'over spent' its tectonic budget" is meant to explain the possible cause for the earthquake in terms a reader with little to no knowledge about geology (i.e. me!) could understand. But, at least to me, it obfuscates it further. The passage that follows, beginning with "explanation for the earthquake involves" explained the matter clearly to me. I think it would be better to simply cut the "tectonic budget" section and go straight into "explanation for the earthquake involves".
    • In the section "Concepción earthquakes", the sequence of earthquakes is described as having occurred near a handful of "regions". In 1960, however, the system of regions had yet to be implemented for another fourteen years. Moreover, the boundaries of the present-day regions often don't coincide with those of the provinces which existed in 1960 (there are no articles explaining this on the English project, but see [7]).
    • There was no "Araucanía" in 1960, but there was an Arauco Province (which does not correspond with the former). In 1960, the region presently known as "La Araucanía" was made up of the provinces of Malleco and Cautín.
    • "Telecommunications to southern Chile were cut off and President Jorge Alessandri cancelled the traditional ceremony of the Battle of Iquique memorial holiday to oversee the emergency assistance efforts." This is true, but this information is not found in the only cited source in that paragraph.
  • I have more comments, but seeing as I'm not the first reviewer for this, I'll hold off for now. However, if LunaEatsTuna is unable to continue their review, I'd be happy to step in ASAP. (Geology isn't a strong point of mine, but Chilean history is.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @That Coptic Guy: I have not forgotten this GA review, but was detained by a trip last week. Will be returning to this review later tonight (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @CurryTime7-24 - Thanks so much for taking the time to review this as a Chilean history enthusiast. I will do my best to fix these errors within the week and ping you when finished. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If stuff comes up, don't sweat it. Take "seven days" flexibly. :) Thanks for nominating the article! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Solid article, but grammar and spelling need improvement. Also, anachronistic place names need to be corrected (e.g. Cardenal Antonio Samoré Pass was known as Puyehue Pass or Paso Puyehue at the time of the earthquake). The passage on human sacrifice relies has a number of issues (see below); it would be best to cut that section. Also, I brought up a number of issues before taking over the review that I'd like the nominator to address as well.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A number of typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors are found throughout the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The sources for the human sacrifice section either relate scanty information (Time) or anecdotes recalled decades later (El Diario Austral de Valdivia). The citation from Tierney lacks a page number for reference. The general impression is that the section teeters on WP:SYNTH.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Nominator has seven days to fix issues addressed above. After that, I'd like to do some spot checks on the citations provided.

Final comments

[edit]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 27, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
2. Verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Neutral point of view?:
5. Stable?:
6. Images?:

I hate doing this, but it's been awhile and there has been no reply to any of my comments. No hard feelings, but this GA nomination cannot proceed. If the issues noted above were addressed by the nominating editor or somebody else and the article were renominated for GA, I would be glad to review it again.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1960_Valdivia_earthquake&oldid=1223614866"