Jump to content

Talk:2011 Christchurch earthquake/Archive 2

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

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:

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) 07:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of "6.1" magnitude and citations.

@Andrewgprout:

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)

Perhaps you shouldn't be so f***ing thin-skinned? But never mind that, shall we consider how to make this article better?
Please note: I did NOT "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 Your edit summary read: "Replaced non-rs Geonet with authoritative ISC reference". I had assumed that the 'non-rs' part of that stood for non-reliable source based on the WP:RS shortcut. But it is of course entirely possible that I misinterpreted your intention and if that's the case, I offer my apologies. What did you mean by that abbreviation? Schwede66 20:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're right: I did say "non-rs", meaning non-reliable. That was not only not exactly what I meant, but it was also incorrect. My apologies; I am not always as careful with my edit summaries as actual discussions. What I meant to say is that it is not ultimately authoritative, but sometimes I get tired typing out such big words. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 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)

My level of "niceness" tends to be inversely proprtional to the argumentiveness and obtuseness I find in a discussion. E.g., where you say "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.)
More items: you fault the ISC for missing "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.
Furthermore: I have NOT "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.
Finally, I was NOT "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)
J. Johnson On the face of it, your argument that your "level of 'niceness' tends to be inversely proprtional to the argumentiveness and obtuseness I find in a discussion" sounds great. But that doesn't hold when you look at the time line of the interactions. The first edit was yours, with a rather meaningless edit summary of "Updated infobox". Andrewgprout then reverted you, with a civil and meaningful edit summary of "Not what the ref says - updated ref to new geonet site structure". You then reverted him with the edit summary "Replaced non-rs Geonet with authoritative ISC reference" that I would regard as inflammatory. Andrewgprout then reverted you with the following longish edit summary: "I think it would be better if you discussed these changes on the talk page before making them - 6.2 is long establshed and backed up by a local reliable reference. Aftershocks are probably best left out of info box as choosing which will be problematic." That sounds like a rather civil way of interacting and communicating with a fellow editor to me. Following that, you opened this talk page thread and used some language that is rather antagonistic. Therefore, up to that point, it was solely you who had conduct issues and you should therefore not claim that there is something wrong with the behaviour of other editors. It is your own behaviour that you should be critical of. Schwede66 23:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you being sanctimonious? Or trying to pick a fight? Your rather slanted timeline of events suggests the latter. My version is that, in the course of updating the infoboxes of over a hundred articles I Boldly edited this article, leaving the same edit summary as on all the rest: "Updated infobox". That is meaningless?? It is exactly true. You wanted details? You only had to ask. Or better yet, just look at the diff.
Your buddy, Andrewgprout, Reverted my edits, stating his expectation that I should ask for permission before making any changes. Oh? I am not aware of any such requirement, certainly not for fairly trivial changes. At any rate, I opened the Discussion, with a brief explanation of why the ISC's value of 6.1 is preferred, and why the "aftershock" I listed is notable. Was that not reasonable?
You assert that I "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"?
I suspect the real issue here is that you two have taken great offense that I "dissed" your hometown team. Get over it. If you want a spitball contest over behavior go to ANI. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
...and no J. Johnson (JJ) just couldn't get over his patronising tone - patronising to the end. I'm so so glad he was "willing to attend to [my] education". I suspect he would be better not necessarilly to assume that his version of reality was the 100% correct correctness. Notice we saw no RS evidence that his "wonder organisation" had "more", rather than simply "different", mana than Geonet despite being clearly asked for such. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
And Andrewgrout just can't get over his sense of a personal affront.
When I opened this discussion I said:

Please note: your "local reliable source" is not the ultimate authority. That would be the reviewed value of the International Seismological Centre (read it), ....

From some of your comments it is evident that you have not bothered to read about the ISC, and as I subsequently said: "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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Christchurch_earthquake/Archive_2&oldid=1239669134"