Talk:1908 Messina earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1908 Messina 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

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 28, 2010, December 28, 2015, and December 28, 2020.

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

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:1908 Messina 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily 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.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
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 engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Recent research indicates that the tidal wave that destroyed Messina in 1908 was not caused by an earthquake but by an underwater landslide. See report by Andrea Billi, geologist, U. of Rome. GeneBi (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was NO TIDAL WAVE - how many times does the scientific community have to repeat this fact! What happened and is subject to research as to its cause was a tsunami was triggered either directly as a result of the earthquake or sediments slumping as an after effect of the shaking. In 2004 the media almost universally accepted that they should no longer use the term "tidal wave" when describing a tsunami. Also can you supply details of the reference that you mention? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.107.221 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sailors and the earthquake

I was very surprised to find out that the article doesn't even mention the fact that several Imperial Russian Navy ships were pretty much the first ones to come to the resque of the Messina citizens (the ships were: Korietz #2, Bogatyr, Russian battleship Tsesarevich, Admiral Makarov, Slava, and Gilyak). I'm posting an article in Russian about this fact so that I don't lose it (if you have the desire and time to translate it and incorporate it into the Messina earthquake article, please go ahead!). The article comes from a St.-Petersburg internet newspaper Fontanka.ru:

"В 1908 году 28 декабря (15-го по старому стилю) сильнейшее землетрясение практически стерло с лица земли город Мессина на Сицилии. В то время недалеко от берегов Италии стояли корабли Балтийской эскадры под командованием контр-адмирала Владимира Литвинова. Российские моряки, не задумываясь и не дожидаясь приказа от командования флота, пришли на помощь пострадавшим людям.

На месте стало известно, что в результате землетрясения и последовавшей за ним мощной волны погиб ремонтировавшийся в доке русский пароход «Продуголь» со всей командой.

Более трех тысяч офицеров, гардемаринов Морского кадетского корпуса и нижних чинов линейных кораблей «Цесаревич» и «Слава», крейсеров «Адмирал Макаров» и «Богатырь» и канонерских лодок «Гиляк» и «Кореец» спасли более двух тысяч человек. Абсолютно точных данных о том, сколько итальянцев было вывезено русскими из разрушенной Мессины, нет. Называется лишь приблизительная цифра – 2400. Но тогда подсчетов никто не вел.

Корабли Балтийского флота превратились в плавучие госпитали и курсировали между Мессиной и другими городами Италии в течение нескольких дней, вывозя раненых. Телеграфные агентства тогда передавали новости о беспрецедентном подвиге русских моряков, которые, рискуя собственной жизнью, практически вручную, не имея никаких специальных средств, вытаскивали из-под завалов людей.

Кроме всего прочего, итальянцев поразил один факт: моряки Балтийского флота спасли кассу банка «Banka Italia». Берлинское телеграфное агентство «Berliner Tageblatt» писало: «Геройское мужество моряков русского военного суда "Адмирал Макаров" вызывает всеобщую признательность. Русские, между прочим, спасли из-под развалин кассу "Banca Italia", содержавшую 20 млн. франков».

Позже итальянские врачи написали морскому министру России: «Мы не в силах описать Вашему превосходительству более чем братские заботы, которыми нас окружили… Русские моряки начертали свои имена золотыми буквами для вечной благодарности всей Италии… Да здравствует Россия!!!».

Тогда все русские моряки, кто принимал участие в спасении итальянцев – 3 тысячи 162 человека, и все корабли были награждены правительством Италии специально отчеканенными медалями.

До сих пор в Италии помнят о том подвиге русских моряков. В Мессине в честь них названы улицы и районы города. Они все созвучны: «Российских героев-моряков 1908 года», «Русских моряков», «Русских моряков Балтийской эскадры». KNewman (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looting

This is fairly minor, but the sentence "Looters soon had to be shot." really seems to beg the question, doesn't it? They "had" to be shot? I'm not sure where the support for this statement came from, either, nor whether it was a formal or informal rule--if it was one at all. Did the military or police on the scene, at some point, decide to shoot people caught looting? Generally, it would probably be good to attempt to incorporate some of the material from the Italian wiki page into this one, since it's much larger: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terremoto_di_Messina --76.115.3.200 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Earthquake caused by God?

I know that a number of Christians use the Messina Earthquake as proof that God exists. The story used goes something along the lines of "the Messina City Council voted in a motion declaring that God did not exist" or "a newspaper in Messina published a parody demanded that God show himself" and not more than three days (or one week) later Messina was hit by a massive earthquake that killed over 100,000 people.

After hearing this from yet another Christian source I came here and am surprised it doesn't at least get a passing mention. Looking for online references at the moment, finding a number but none that I like so far. If someone else was able to find a good solid reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.57.97 (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because this is a science page not a place to discuss whether a phenomena that cannot be proved is a fairy tale or a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.107.221 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see cited material blaming it on God for a certain documented activity if they were published contemporary with the events rather than many years later (which could be embellished by hindsight).Cloptonson (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's additions

The tone of today's additions is not good. Much of it reads like a newspaper article and I see few sources added. Dawnseeker2000 19:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have since been added. Details are important considering this was Europe's deadliest earthquake. Check out the same article on Italian Wikipedia. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalistic details are unimportant. That the Italians have chosen that approach is not a reason for us to do the same. This type of content does not read like an encyclopedia article. Does Wikinews accept content like this? I don't know. Dawnseeker2000 16:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So articles should be stale and devoid of all details. I have written over 300' articles and my descriptions have never been a problem. Funny it never bothered you that this article failed to give the prcise epicentre until.I added it. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be of concern that the Italian article contained more details and information about this catackysmic event than this one did. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italy or Kingdom of Italy?

Should Italy be listed or the Kingdom of Italy seeing as the country was a monarchy in 1908? Thoughts? Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much narrative without any evidence

Some of this reads like a newspaper penny dreadful. Very little of the descriptive narrative has citations. I notice that a contributor replaced "crushed" with "smashed" when referring to a beam falling on someone's head. Really? There is evidence for that? What is the difference? Very little of any of this is enclopaedic, quite a lot of it is just plain bad (and has got a lot worse in the past week or so). Plingsby (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Plain.bad"! .For someone criticising another's narrative I would expect better usage of the English.language. anyway, I am remiving some of the " penny dreadful" barrative seeing as English Wikipedia is currently being edited by a host of safe-space seeking snowflakes. Hey, I have got news for you. People do get smashed up in severe earthquakes when the entire city falls around them. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I see you have fixed my errors. Thank you. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depth

Would anyone happen to know the depth of the earthquake? Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

As with many earthquakes, various sources give rather widely ranging values for the total number of deaths. The article currently gives a range of 75,000 to 200,000 based on the PAGER-CAT source. The link shown is dead, but using this link and using the PAGER_CAT_V2.zip file, I was able to download the spreadsheet. The value of 75,000 is sourced to the EMDAT catalogue, 82,000 is sourced to the NGDC and shown as the "preferred total deaths". The spreadsheet also shows values of 75,000, 110,000 and 200,00 all sourced to Utsu's catalogue (you can carry out a search on the catalogue here. Utsu does list his sources but it's not clear which supplied the 110,000 and 200,000 figures. His listed sources include Boschi et al 2000, which is now part of the CFTI5med Italian earthquake online catalogue, Paula Dunbar's 1992 catalogue that is now the NOAA online catalogue and much older catalogues from Milne (1911) and Sieberg (1932). The NOAA catalogue currently shows 46,869-82,035, 58,000, 83,000, 85,925, 75,000, 80,000, 60,000-100,000. The CFTI5med catalogue gives 80,000 as the "best accepted estimate". It is therefore likely that the 110,00 and 200,000 numbers come from Sieberg and Milne, and I don't have access to either of those catalogues. I think that there is a good case for replacing the current range in the infobox and the lead section with 75,000-82,000 as that covers all the modern catalogues. We can always mention the other numbers in the relevant section of the article. I'll make that change in a few days unless there are objections. Mikenorton (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor. No objections, seems sensible.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]