Jump to content

Talk:2009 L'Aquila earthquake/Archive 1

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

Deaths

From the BBC: "Deaths were reported in the surrounding towns and villages of Castelnuovo, Poggio Picenze, Tornimparte, Fossa, Totani and Villa Sant'Angelo."[1] Does this mean that there were deaths in each of those places or just in the region which contains all those places?

Those are towns in Abruzzo. The earthquake was felt in contiguous regions but there is no evidence of deaths so far. --Exephyo (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior warning

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5114139/Italian-earthquake-experts-warnings-were-dismissed-as-scaremongering.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinniuop (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Houses destroyed

I guess all these houses collapsed. [2] TouLouse (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The deadliest earthquake

The L'Aquila earthquake isn't the deadliest in the last 30 years. In 1980 a huge quake in Irpinia(an area near Naples) killed 2,914 people. I change the incipit of the article. --79.10.34.71 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should read the second deadliest earthquake to hit Italy in 30 years. What do the other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, what it should read is "the deadliest earthquake to hit Italy in nearly 30 years" 24.25.215.235 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the current version ("deadliest ... in nearly thirty years") is fine, and better than "the second deadliest earthquake to hit Italy in 30 years". -- Avenue (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It should say "the deadliest in nearly 30 years", as it does now. It was the deadliest since the end of the Irpinia quake, which was over 28 years ago. Maybe even more explicitly: "the deadliest since the 1980 Irpinia earthquake". --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's even better. -- Avenue (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Time zone

The article says that as of 15:xx, some people are still trapped under rubble and so on. What time zone is this? Can we convert that to UTC and make clear what time we are talking about here? ⟳ausa کui × 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Italy is on the UTC+2 zone because of summer time practice (European Summer Time). Now is 17.32. --Exephyo (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Prefered is to list local time first (and say what time zone it is; presumably Central European Summer Time) with UTC following in ()s. Jon (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Year in title

Why do we have to slap "2009" in front of every other news-related article? There is no L'Aquila earthquake so 2009 is completely and utterly redundant. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No...year must be an this article...see others articles about earthquakes. TouLouse (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no L'Aquila earthquake probably because articles about earlier quakes mention the time in the title, too. This isn't the first major quake in the history of L'Aquila. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Until there is an article about another of those alleged quakes in L'Aquila "2009" doesn't serve any purpose, as there are no articles to differ it from. "2009" here is as useful as 1945 death of Adolf Hitler. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ssst! Please stop! Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been one death of Adolf Hitler. There have been many earthquakes in L'Aquila. We want the reader to be able to figure out which one we're talking about by reading the article title. And we don't want to move the page if/when someone writes an article about some other quake in L'Aquila. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the article, there have been several earthquakes there over the centuries. So the sugested title is what would be more approatite to a disambig page pointing to each of the ones that are note worthy enough for their own articles. Jon (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename page

The earthquake started on december until now. The main shock was on 6th April, not the earthquake. Again, talking about the main shock is different to talking the earthquake (2008 to 2009). --Exephyo (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as it's an Italian event, and the Italians are calling it the Abruzzo earthquake, the article should be named thus. 2009 Italian earthquake is extremely vague. It would be like calling the 1906 San Francisco earthquake the 1906 American earthquake!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. 2009 Abruzzo Earthquake or 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake make much more sense. Bonzostar (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good job. While you moved the page I was typing the following: “The shocks in December were very minor; I wasn't able to feel any of them, and they wouldn't even deserve an article if there hadn't been the Big One this morning. (The only shocks above magnitude 4 were that of 30 March and those of this morning.) Whereas I agree that the series of shocks since December should be mentioned, calling it 2008–09 Abruzzo earthquake might be overkill. But even that over-specificity would be better than the over-vagueness 2009 Italian earthquake: there have been other quakes in Italy in 2009, including a 4.6-magnitude one yesterday in Forlì. So I'd go with 2009 Abruzzo earthquake (1st choice), 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, 2008–09 Abruzzo earthquake, or 2008–09 L'Aquila earthquake.” I'm fine with the title, now. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, it was I who called it the "2009 Italian earthquake" with the intention that it be changed at a later date. When it happened there was no clarity on the exact location and I needed a quick title. --candle•wicke 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for mentioning ...

I have an Italian station along with regular satellite, the channel being RAItalia (formerly just RAI), as do most of my family. I'd happened to see what's on television on there, at 2:00AM, and the regular program had been interrupted for the breaking news. Then some family had called and said that there was a massive earthquake in the whole of the province of L'Aquila, strongest at the capoluogo (capital) of the same name. I tuned in to ABC World New an hour later to see if we over here in America had gotten the news. Fortunately, they covered this quake, but it was rather short. They spent more time talking about North Korea's rocket launch than the earthquake. And the guy's pronunciation of "L'Aquila" was hilarious! Instead of saying it as L'Àquila, he said L' Aquìla! (Sorry, but I just had to mention that!) Anyways, I had heard that a bit farther south in the province, near the border with Isernia, the magnitude reached a whopping 9.0. I hardly believe this, but quakes do gain strength as they move, so it would not be unusual. I have lots of family throughout the province, especially at the city of L'Aquila itself. Maria Santucci, one of our more respected family members, was spared, but the condominium she was in was a disaster, the walls were stripped out and the whole interior of the condo could be seen from the outside, though the building did not collapse. Her husband is a policeman, and so I bet he has way more work to do than always. Now they can only sleep in their car and hope they can salvage what they can. Well, nothing will be salvageable anyways because right now it's hailing and pouring in L'Aquila, and it's currently the coldest city in Italy. Well, I pray that all victims and survivors of the disaster recover, and that the province and especially the city itself can rebuild. This quake has ended up being worse than the one that hit Umbria and Marche in the late '90's, I think it was. If you have a reply, or perhaps your own story to share of this, Wikipedia as a whole, and especially I, would love to hear it. IlStudioso 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your mention of a reported magnitude 9, this is likely to refer to the felt intensity of the earthquake on the Mercalli intensity scale. Mikenorton (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
World coverage of events such as these is unfortunately quite bad anyway. Sky News didn't seem to handle it very well when I switched it on but thankfully I eventually found some more info on this via the BBC. And Wikipedia is of course always a good place to come for even more sources!!! :) --candle•wicke 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of the warner

Gioacchino Giuliani, according to wikinews http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientist_says_he_predicted_Italy_earthquake,_was_ignored is not same as Giampaolo Giuliani which cites wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake#Prior_warning_controversy). what is true who is wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WieaAPrQEN4 talks of Giampaolo Giuliani Giampaolo (not equal) Gioacchino --Stefanbcn (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't this part somehow link to sth. like earthquake prediction methods? I vaguely recollect that radon emission and animal behaviour have been studied, after wich animal behaviour gained in popularity as a method of prediction. Even that i wonder why there is no mention, i think it would have been observable. Animals for example tend to go downhill. Radon is known for a long time as a method, because the radon emissions associated with vulcanic events and earthquakes are well recognised. The argument against it, and i think the other chemical methods has always been they are such a bad indication, i don't know in how far that is sincere, but i remember evicting vulcanoes on the base of radon emissions (or another chemical method) was considered no succes.24.132.170.97 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Aftershocks

Magnitude

The article says 6.3, but all the news reports here in Italy say 6.8, including a noted volcanologist in a live interview.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
All the English language sources I have seen have used 6.3 (compare Italy earthquake 6.3 with Italy earthquake 6.8). The Italian version of this article also uses 6.3 - Dumelow (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The news reports here are now saying 6.3.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But site of the National Institut of Geophysics and Volcanology shows Mw of 6.2 [4] --PaoVac (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) It states ±0.30 as the error on the magnitude, so writing 6.3 instead of 6.2 if most sources do so is not a great deal. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is some insightful information regarding magnitudes, and why are various magnitudes used. (A brief tutorial by a Life Member of the Seismological Society of America, for Wiki folks.) The quickest and simplist determination is typically the body-wave magnitude, mb; or the surface-wave magnitude, Ms. Third in simplicity is the Local Magnitude scale, ML developed in 1935 by Dr. Charles Richter of Caltech. Thanks for realizing that he never named this scale after himself...it was a popularization. But by the 1970s, seismologists realized that most of these magnitude scales saturated at higher values...sort of like a wet sponge that cannot absorb any more water. So Dr. Thomas Hanks and Dr. Hiroo Kanamori at Caltech developed the moment magnitude scale in 1970, symbol Mw. Think of an elongate irregular oval planar surface at depth, the precise dimensions are not immediatly perceivable: this the fault plane that ruptured with the main shock. Seismologists make an estimate of the area, A. They then need to measure the distance, d, in meters, that the fault shifted. From simple physics, this is the "work" accomplished by the earthquake: Area A shifted D meters = work. This is the reason why the letter w is used for the moment magntitude scale, Mw. Now, patiently bear with me. It takes many days while seismologists carefully study the subsurface pattern of aftershocks which illuminate the unseen boundaries of the rupture surface. So seismologists will revise the magnitude slightly, based on continually updated information as the series of aftershocks roll in. Italian geologists on the ground are measuring offset benchmarks and any other topographic feature to provide information back to the seismologists in the laboratory. GPS, Lidar, and satellite imagery are also used, and some final model has to be agreed upon. The focal depth of the mainshock will also be slightly adjusted, like maybe changing it from 10 km to 9.8 km. This was a very shallow earthquake, and hence the structural damage was more severe.

I hope that Wiki readers like the timely publication in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America that I inserted as a reference. This arrived in my mailbox in California on Monday, April 6, the very day of the earthquake. The paper is authored by 4 excellent seismologists from Italy, and 2 American seismologists in Denver, Colorado, who work for the U.S. Geological Survey. The paper was sent to the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America one year ago....April 5, 2008. And it took awhile for scholarly peer-review, and then was set into type and the figures were finalized. The Italian seismologists are very smart, and this paper will be widely read in the aftermath of this tragic earthquake. Submitted by Robert H. Sydnor < RHSydnor@aol.com > a seismologist in California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHSydnor (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cause section reads like technobabble

This section may be factually correct, but does not help the average user to understand why the earthquake occurred. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With my relatively basic knowledge of geology from secondary school geography I was able to get the gist of the section and any words I didn't understand were helpfully wiki-linked and I was quickly able to understand what had happened. I don't think it could be written any more simply and still portray the same information. I think the section is fine as it is. Warpfactor (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Warpfactor. Technical language is not "technobabble": is a precise way of describing precise facts. I have not a particular geological culture either, so if I want understand better that paragraph I go and read further articles. Goochelaar (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

About death toll

When updating the death toll please include date, time and possibily source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.63.117 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My source is the Italian tv news: RAI, Mediaset, etc., but I will be sure to add them in future. Sadly, the death toll keeps rising, by the time I've added the ref, it has gone up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'v updated the death toll (279), but my entry has been deleted. My sources are Italian newspapers (www.corriere.it and www.repubblica.it) reporting official data from the Protezione Civile Italiana. --79.8.91.2 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The map?

The map used is in version 2, it has been updated later: [5] --Rorycn (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestinians

News accounts include 2 Palestinians, as I have edited in. I hope someone could do the courtesy of mounting their national flag. I'm not a techie. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, pal.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heart failure?

Is it possible for an aftershock to cause a death from heart failure in Rome, as stated here?? Fconaway (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The fear that a powerful earthquake can provoke with the knowlege that at any second the walls of your house can crash down upon you, coupled with images shown of collapsed buildings on television can easily produce a heart attack. One of the firemen assisting in the rescue of those trapped under fallen masonry died of heart failure after his exertions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to clarify that it was the fright which caused the heart failure, not the earth's motion itself, feel free to do so. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The fireman apparently died of a "heart attack", rather than "heart failure". There's a big difference. See Myocardial infarction and compare Heart failure. Fconaway (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article cited says "(ANSA) - ROMA, 7 APR - Un uomo di 76 anni e' morto questa sera a Roma per arresto cardiaco dopo lo spavento avuto..." So it appears the victim in Rome was a 76-year-old man, who died of cardiac arrest, rather than a heart attack or heart failure. Fconaway (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism galore

the early part of the paragraph beginning "Nearly all medieval monuments in L'Aquila have been damaged." was lifted entirely from this source, which was cited here a few days ago (look at revisions from three days ago or so). The wording of the rest of the paragraph is mostly taken from this ANSA article. I was just trying to follow up on the issue of the damage to historic buildings in L'Aquila and have not checked the the rest of the article.

(The first link still worked when I looked yesterday but seems to go directly to a main news site now. The short news notice can still be found here and in a number of other places on the web.) --Hegvald (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to avoid such blatant copying. -- Avenue (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Intervention paragraph

Current text:

There have been front-page editorials in the Italian press calling for the democratic and socialist parties not to block the government's reconstruction efforts in support of its move to change the building codes in the region.[29] However, radio reports on the morning of April 09 suggested that many of the city's newer buildings were damaged worse than the historic neighborhoods, casting doubt over the intervention.

Could someone who understands the issue rewrite this to be more clear? I'd like to know more about this controversy, but I don't understand why these parties might be expected to block the reconstruction, who it is that wants to change the building codes in the region, how exactly the former is related to the latter, or how these new reports "cast doubt" over the intervention. (Doubt that the intervention exists? Doubt that it's a good idea?) The citation is in Italian, which doesn't help me. Propaniac (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have, for the time being, removed the section altogether. The unique source given had little to do with what the paragraph implied: it was a Corriere leading article saying that government and opposition have temporarily suspended mutual ill feelings and all are doing their best for the victims of the earthquake. It is definitely not an exhortation to one of the parts. So, until somebody finds something about the controversy, it'd better stay out. Goochelaar (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I s'pose it meant "It is pointless to change the building code, as no-one actually abode by the existing one in the last few decades." Journalist Marco Travaglio spoke about this on TV last evening. When I find an online source (preferably in English) about this point, I'll add a paragraph about this. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Should note that I originally added the paragraph after after an elderly Italian man translated the article for me. Ottre 10:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Location

It should be noted that in addition to the locations listed. Castelnuovo di San Pio was one of the worst hit areas. I don't know the damage in Castelnuovo di Borgo (mentioned in the wikipedia entry), but the images on TV that simply say "Castelnuovo" are all from Castelnuovo di San Pio My sources are Italian News (RAI) and intoscana.it as well as personal accounts from relatives. (72.138.159.104 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Frank Casilio) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.159.104 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All missing people have been found

The article says there are 10 missing people, but as of 17 April, all missing people have been found; therefore article should state this fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of the warner II

how come that still my question was not answered and nobody fixed the apparemtly wrong names?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake#Name_of_the_warner --Stefanbcn (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Italian wiki [6], his full name appears to be Gioacchino Giampaolo Giuliani, but is more often known as just 'Giampaolo Giuliani'. There seems to be no reason to change what we have in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Access to the city center

As of late June, 2009 access to the city center has been limited, blocked off by the military and police. Only persons with business in the city (governance, reconstruction, owning property) are allowed into the city center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.182.14 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior warning controversy is all wrong!

  1. Giuliani did never predict anything "on the television"
  2. The only *alleged* prediction of Giuliani is about Sulmona and days before the L'Aquila earthquake
  3. The prediction of a "major earthquake" on Sulmona has been reported to the media by the major of Sulmona but is denied by Giuliani
  4. The accusation of alarmism is about the alleged prediction about Sulmona (which is denied by Giuliani)
  5. Giuliani didn't realized that L'Aquila was going to have a major earthquake until few hours before the earthquake when he sent warning sms's to the people he knew.

There is a lot of incorrect information around this case on the media. In the italian wikipedia page of it:Giampaolo Giuliani there are several italian references for what I wrote. Please correct the section.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE DUDE, AND ALSO: There is so much stuff that happened here and not included that the controversy should be it's own article. If anyone knows why it should not have it's own article? Otherwise I say we create "L'Aquila Earthquake Prediction Controversy" as a page and start with at least what we have there, i'll post new idea stuff in the new talk page. Thank-You! Lesbrown99 (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  Recent edits suggest that there is lingering confusion as to whether Giampaolo Giuliani predicted L'Aquila event, or not. That was certainly suggested by early reports in the popular press, but the prestigious International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection found otherwise. A closer look shows that Giuliani arguably made three predictions, of which two flat out did not happen, and the third (the evening before) does not qualify as a prediction. (For further explanation see my revision of Earthquake prediction, and particularly Earthquake prediction#L'Aquila.) This confusion is undoubtedly due to reliance on the popular press, which tends to sensationalize and pander to the popular theme of individuals vs. "the establishment".
  An article on this "prediction" might be interesting, but it would need to get beyond the popular press and popular, unconsidered opinion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Head scientists quitting in protest

Prof Maiani's decision to quit was announced by the Italy's Civil Protection department, which said the commission's vice-president, Mauro Rosi, and emeritus president Giuseppe Zamberletti had also tendered their resignations.

more info in this BBC Article EdwardLane (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria. --65.128.188.237 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What criteria? It certainly doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria. This is a major, notable natural disaster, of which it is completely customary to have an article. Shadowjams (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
See here; someone tagged it for speedy deletion without citing any specific criterion and without any edit summary. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=1074827011"