Talk:2014 Iquique earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Iquique 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

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

weblog of references. Edward Vielmetti.
NWS NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER PALMER AK. Tsunami wave heights.
Seismological Institute of Chile. Earthquake report.
First hand accounts of quake. Santiago Times, English language newspaper of Chile.

Comment: More sources to come

A news item involving 2014 Iquique earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 March 2014.

Wikipedia

Chile Low‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

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

Bold text

2014 Iquique earthquake looks a lot better. – Thecodingproject (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for sources

I've been blogging this incident here and there are a number of good sources to incorporate.

At this writing I have not seen written confirmation of the 2 reported dead, hence the citation needed tag. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward Vielmetti: Can you add a Ref ideas template to this talk page with your suggested references? That'd probably help get them included faster! --Nicereddy (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use the quake info given by the Seismological Institute of Chile, rather than that given by the USGS/NOAA. It's not that the US info is less trustworthy, but the Chilean institute may give more precise data, IMHO. This is the Chilean report: http://sismologia.cl/events/sensibles/2014/04/01-2346-47L.S201404.html. --El Pichilemino (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used both in the 2010 Chilean earthquake article if I remember correctly. I believe we can use both if need be. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll

How about adding a death toll? 110.20.130.141 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in the infobox as "casualties", although it will likely change significantly over the next few days. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophe state

President Bachelet decreed state of catastrophe in the regions of Arica y Parinacota, and Tarapacá because of the quake (that is, the Army will move onto the zone to protect lootings and that kind of stuff, in addition to help with any additional task needed in case of destruction of buildings, houses, etc.). [1] --El Pichilemino (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please lock.

Some vandal is deleting the contents and putting a tab for speedy deletion. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seism

"Seism" is a great word, and I request that all future versions of this article preserve the use of this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.128.234 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7.8 Richter magnitude aftershock

National news media (Televisión Nacional de Chile) is currently reporting there was an aftershock of magnitude 7.8 in the Richter scale: http://www.tvn.cl/player/envivo/ El Pichilemino (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question to future readers, but do we have an article that focuses on two earthquakes? I have a feeling that we might need to consider changing the focus of the article based on what happens in the next few hours. -Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on earthquake sequences, and since both of these very large shocks haven't been catastrophic events, there really isn't going to be that much to say about them. Later (in a year or two) when the seismologists' reports come out, we can expand the article further, but I think it will still be a moderate size article and not too lengthy. We wouldn't want am overly-large article, but even after adding detail about the shock mechanisms and other fine detail, I don't think we'll have something so big that it'll have to be split. Dawnseeker2000 13:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this event was not an aftershock, but an independent earthquake and it should not be listed as an aftershock. Technically an aftershock is the result of the stress induced over the rocks by the first event, but in this case, the first earhtquaque had only released a part of the accumulated energy (the plate moved about 5-6 mts of about 9.5 to 10) and the new event moved the plate 2 mts. further, releasing more energy. Hence, it is an completely independent event, that must be understood as a continuation of the first quake.SFBB (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have a source that says it's an independent event we have to say that it's an aftershock. That's what our source says. Dawnseeker2000 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is your source stating it is an aftershock and not an indendependent event? The fact, that it has ocurred after the first earthquake doesn't mean it is an aftershock. Many laymen would call any event after a bigger one an aftershock, but the difference relies on the characteristics of the events.SFBB (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the USGS source in the table for that shock. Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I concede it, they have just called the event an aftershock but it's an error and they will have to change it in the next days, because the quake doesn't satisfy the characteristics of an aftershock (e.g. Bath's Law) . The chilean goverment has correctly stated that this event is not an aftershock (http://blog.worldvisionyouth.org/2014/04/03/earthquake-hits-chile/)SFBB (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the USGS uses an automated system to generate those reports, but at any rate, this is really too early to be discussing these things. The seismologists' reports won't be out on these events for about a year or so. Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources

Perhaps good sources to improve this article could be the "La Tercera" and "El Mercurio" newspapers. Both are available online for free:

La Tercera, edition of 2 April: main page, pages 2, 3, [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
La Tercera, today's edition: main page, pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
El Mercurio: 2 April, 3 April
La Segunda (afternoon newspaper): 2 April
I Love Chile News (one of the few English-language sources in Chile): [2] (probably incorrectly dated 28 March).

I'll be soon adding further sources from local media. El Pichilemino (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(As a note: I have printed editions of La Tercera and El Mercurio (2-3 April) distributed in all regions except Santiago, which gave little, preliminary of the quake. The ones I linked above are the editions distributed in Santiago. The edition distributed in all regions except Santiago is 'closed' at 9 PM the day before, while the Santiago edition may even be 'closed' at 3 or 4 AM of the publicaiton day. If requested, I may give some scans of the regional editions. El Pichilemino (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, good picture sources are the local provincial government websites. I have uploaded all of the pictures of the Arica Provincial Government to Commons (commons:Category:Gobernación Provincial de Arica), while the others are available here: ~~Iquique~~ (uploaded), ~~Parinacota~~ (uploaded), Tamarugal. Küñall (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have got, in PDF format, all of the newspapers published within the Arica y Parinacota, Tarapacá, and Antofagasta regions, if somebody wants to consult them, just send me an e-mail. Küñall (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expected?

Where do I find a source that says that this earthquake was expected? Predicting earthquakes is generally considered impossible. There is a source that says that 100,000 people evacuated coastal areas after a smaller preceding earthquake, but that was to avoid any possible tsunami. Geogene (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be in this one somewhere: [3] Dawnseeker2000 21:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have little understanding of Spanish but it is probably on Page 5, which seems to move the expectation to an expert on CNN. Here is English coverage from CNN in which an expert says that this was not big enough to be the quake they expect [4] which seems to be what the article says as well. My trouble with the article is that it appears to link the recent precursor earthquakes to the "expectation" of this earthquake, in reality they expect a future earthquake in the region because it has been quiet for so long. But that expectation is "sometime in the next 50 years" not "sometime in April" as the article seems to imply. And the precursor earthquakes don't seem to have been considered predictive of this one. If only it were that simple... Geogene (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earthquake was certainly forecast (not the same as predicted) "The largest historical earthquake occurred in SS1 was in May 09, 1877 with Mw 8.6, converted to Mb, 6.9 using Mw/Mb, relationship determined by Zamudio (1998). The return period (RP) for this largest magnitude earthquake in SS1 is 135 years, which means an earthquake like the one of 1877 could occur in northern Chile around the year 2012." (from [5]). Mikenorton (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but further, this explanation (which was broadcast by Chilean television on March 25, 2014, almost a week before the massive earthquake M 8,2) of what could happen not only in general, but as precise interpretation of the string of previous earthquakes, has been considered in Chile and also in international media as a "prediction". Predictions do not need to be precise, delimiting a range of probable outcomes also qualifies as a type of "prediction" and forecasting in science (anyway better than "anything may happen"). Das MiMaMi (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are two different examples of prediction...or really an "earthquake forecast" vs. "earthquake prediction", as Mikenorton points out the difference above. The article implies more of an "earthquake prediction". But the article uses the word "expected" so it could be either. I doubt that experts were necessarily expecting the big earthquake was imminent but the public might have been, regardless of whether they had a scientifically valid reason to. If they were then they were right this time. I've come to think that most readers probably wouldn't care about the difference, so it's probably just splitting hairs. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]