Talk:1819 Rann of Kutch earthquake

Page move
I would really appreciate it if editors who think that a page should be moved to another title would discuss this first. Where is the evidence that the new title is the 'proper name'? Refs 2, 3, 4 & 6 all use the 'Rann of Kachchh'. Also none of the redirects have been fixed - I'm not doing them, because the last time I did that for one of my recently created articles, the name was changed back and I had to fix them all again. Mikenorton (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * because per the wikilink that had the real name for Kutch it was changed to Kucchcch which is not the term used today. Even the wiki articles use Rann of Kutch. Sure the old sources for the day may name it as such, but WP is not published 100 years ago. The contemporary and proper name is Kutch for the location where it happened.Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no 'real name', there may be a preferred name, but in this case it's not what the place is known as but what the earthquake is known as and a (slight) preponderance of sources use the 'Kachchh' spelling, which is why I chose it. We have articles on earthquakes in Antioch, because that is how it was spelt at the time, even though it has been Antakya for a long time. Mikenorton (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a real name because the people not the distant colonial historians have said that. ANyways, the earthquake does not have a proper noun . per naming convention on WP its on the lcoation of the aearthquake and the location was in the Rann of Kutch regardless of when it happened. As for the OSE prejdugment bit, that should be changed too.Lihaas (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, we do use the names that events are called by sources - see the disagreements on many talk pages for recent earthquakes. I'm not suggesting moving it back, I just wanted to know why it had been moved in the first place. I've changed the spelling in the diagram that shows the location of the 'Allah Bund', and I guess that I'll fix all those redirects as well. I have no idea what you mean by 'OSE prejudgement bit'. Mikenorton (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But which sources? british ones from back then? Anyhoo, go ahead and change it if you feel fit...thanks for discussing though ;)
 * WP:OSELihaas (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake time in UTC
The time of this earthquake in UTC in the first source appears to be incorrect as it should obviously be earlier than the local time rather than later. It's not the first time that I've found errors in the NOAA/NGDC earthquake database. I'll try to contact them about it, but until then I think that it's safer to just use the local time given in the source and remove the UTC, so that's what I'll do. Mikenorton (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1819 Rann of Kutch 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211225650/http://www.seismosoc.org/publications/bssa_html/bssa_100-2/2008328-esupp/annotations.html to http://www.seismosoc.org/publications/bssa_html/bssa_100-2/2008328-esupp/annotations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
Hi, I was on some other unrelated info-quest (like the one leading to 847 Damascus earthquake), and randomly came across this contemporary account which was printed in many other journals at the time:

I'm not sure if any of the following could be used in the article, but it says that there were an estimated 2000 fatal casualties in Bhuj alone, with up to 1500 already recovered from the ruins. At Jaisalmer the fort was reduced to rubble, and it seems to my un-mathematical brain that the loss of 500 wedding guests in the streets there could be included in the total reported in Bhuj. Mundra was also severely affected. Apparently no lives were lost in Ahmedabad (the capital of Gujarat) despite the destruction of the 450-year old minarets. (p. 18)

The earthquake in June was followed by a severe storm in Kutch district of great destructive force on 9-10 October 1819, which laid waste to the fields and tore up trees by their roots; towns and villages were destroyed by inundated rivers, with four feet of flooding on the plains. There was little loss of life, but great numbers of cattle were destroyed. (p. 19) Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi MinorProphet, thanks for the information. I went with the total used in the NOAA source as a minimum, although it also mentions 2000 casualties (from Oldham in his 1883 catalogue of Indian earthquakes). It's proved impossible to get reliable final totals for some 21st century earthquakes, so I'm reluctant to be more specific. As to the source that you give, it's an interesting account, but repeats the eruption of a volcano, which is definitely wrong, so I'm not sure about the other things that it mentions. Mikenorton (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having a look. BTW, I'm absolutely not an expert, and just curious, but is this the same volcano briefly mentioned in this 1832 account? (See also section 4 above for interest.) Is it fictional, and if so, any more information? List of volcanoes in India has the extinct one in the Dhinodhar Hills, which is around the 35 miles/60km from Bhuj mentioned in the first account, but this is probably not connected. MinorProphet (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)