Talk:1925 Santa Barbara earthquake

Reverts
Dawnseeker2000, every time you revert you are changing what I have added, please do not do this. I see that you and the other editor have a disagreement but do not undo my work. I do have to add that I feel that the Southern California Earthquake Data Center is more reliable as a reference. Imveracious (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this after posting on your talk page. Yes, you're correct, and I apologize. Dawnseeker2000   19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah, that you "feel like" a ref is "more reliable" is not really a valid argument. I have already stated that there are two sources in WP articles that use the stated M. Using multiple sources from seismologists is a great way to resolve these kinds of disputes. Like I said, there is no good reason to change it and I will be restoring it at some point. Sorry, on a mobile device and not the easiest to do this with. Dawnseeker2000   19:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hah?? Do you take this a some sort of a joke? I need not explain how it is that I "feel" to you, though I will for the sake that perhaps you will understand that it my word usage does not mean literally speaking. I say such as a well established, recognized extension of The California Institute of Technology is a more reliable than an ebook from two unknown seismologists. Their work is twenty-two years old and the science of seismology is dynamic and not static. Imveracious (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unknown? Ignorance. The USGS uses their statistics for many of their pages on earthquakes in the United States, including this one. That you both are arguing that the lab at Caltech is more reliable is just false. Static? Get real. There is nothing that's changed since 1993 that would make for a more proper or updated value. Show me a comprehensive report on the matter and I'll sit down and shut up, but the 1993 figures are as valid as any. You know, as well as I do, that there are many values for magnitude presented and this should never have been changed. Shyncat's statement about the 01/31/2013 "update" on the SCEC page is incorrect as well. He's saying some seismologist spent some time evaluating some new data. That's just false. It's an general page update; that argument doesn't work either. I see that you've added another matching source for that magnitude so I'll be walking away at this point. These aren't by best moments here and so will just move on to something else. Dawnseeker2000  19:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back
No one has provided a decent reason to change the magnitude. Only erroneous reasons have been supplied. I have restored the original figure, along with the source (Stover & Coffman 193) and have bolstered it with another independent earthquake catalog from Toppozada & Branum 2004. The Stover & Coffman source has been in the article since close to the article's creation. There's nothing wrong with it, and now there's another source that agrees. The Caltech source is great, but you're saying Stover & Coffman are unknown, and that is ridiculous. The Caltech source isn't updated or more recent, it's just different. You've got absolutely no basis for saying it's better. By the way, Stover & Coffman's magnitude is presented as 6.82. Is that accurate enough? Now back off and check WP:STATUSQUO. Dawnseeker2000  21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No what you have done is blatant outright vandalism, removing properly referenced materiel and edit warring which will be taken up with the admins Imveracious (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is really not surprising
Really, for Shyncat to be placing these "verify soruce" tags (with no commentary on the talk page) in the article. Dude, the source is available. Read it. It's not surprising to me that the editor has taken these actions because of the statements that were made earlier during the source debate. They were way off track. Just like these templates. Dawnseeker2000  22:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have tried to be civil while you play your games. Whatever-whoever is doing is not my business, what is mine is your idea that you own this article and will not allow any changes which are properly referenced and when they are changed you go crazy. You do not remove properly referenced text!!!!! You have been on Wiki long enough to know how to act. Quit the "dude" stuff and act more in the interest of the article, not your own. Imveracious (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I put the verify source tags there because I sure don't read all that there. Like Imveracious said, you can't stand anybody making changes to what is in here and you sure do act like you OWN IT. You've even go so far as to take off a few of the tags, how do you explain that? You should let the reader see for themselves. If the info is there then someone will put a tag and if not it'll fail. I'm not perfect, but I'm not blind either Shyncat (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one who came in here and started making changes to sourced material, am I? Then you both came in and said Stover and Coffman was not as reliable. Both of you are severely mistaken. I simply restored the article. I don't own it but it's certainly within my right to use sources that you've both failed to prove lacking. Dawnseeker2000  23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect reasons to change M and source
The magnitude for this shock had been using the Stover & Coffman source since nearly the article's creation. The editor who added it mistakenly listed it as Richter magnitude of course, but it's easy to see why someone might make that choice. Richter was in his prime was working at Caltech and just about to make his new scale a worldwide name. That source, the catalog from Stover & Coffman, is a highly reliable and incredible index of shocks for the United States. It's a USGS publication and they use it on their website for many earthquakes in the United States.

Shyncat comes around and notices the use of the Richter scale. OK fine, he wants to use the moment magnitude scale, but we're talking about a 1925 shock, so it could be easily argued to stick with the Richter mag. Well, we know Stover & Coffman really meant Mw, right? Great, let's use that. No, Shyncat says, because Caltech is really a lot better than Stover and Coffman because there's been some recent and miraculous update on their website. It says so right at the bottom of the page: "last update: 01/31/2013"

I think you're reading something that isn't there. That date does not mean a seismologist took the time to work on the old forgotten details of this shock and applied some new (newer than 1993?!) application or technology that we mustn't overlook, then simply added the date to the bottom of the page to mark his great work. That's not what's going on here. The page may have had some updating as far as styling goes, but that's about it. By the way, just who is this seismologist that put together those details? Sure would be nice to have a name to associate with the figures. That is my preference (to use sources from reports that a scientist wrote and put their name on). Imveracious, who seems to feel that the Caltech source is superior also, but feels that he doesn't need to say why. Feelings are enough, apparently, to make changes to WP articles. My intention here is to restore the original magnitude and source, because there hasn't been a good enough reason to change it. I am not the one who came in and changed (well) sourced information. Dawnseeker2000  03:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as i read this, you are misstating the facts. In 1925 Richter was in his not in his "prime" or was he even "working at Caltech" and was certainly not "just about to make his new scale a worldwide name." In 1927 he was at Caltech although, at the time as he states here, he was working on his Ph.D. in theoretical physics. The Richter magnitude scale was not developed until 1935! As stated in the Catalog of Santa Barbara Earthquakes, published by the Institute for Crustal Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara in the listings for the day of the event.. "a subsequent comparison of records shows that the magnitude of the main shock of 1925 was approximately 6.3. It was recorded by seismographs at Lick Observatory on Mt. Hamilton and at Santa Clara College, both near San Jose in northern California, and in the central and eastern U.S. and Europe." Then you go on to write "Well, we know Stover & Coffman really meant Mw, right?" ; while they may have and at the time it may have been correct, we also must recognize that we do have more recent numbers from reputable and well established institutions. Notwithstanding the Institute for Crustal Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, the Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC) is much more than two seismologists who compiled a book of the seismic activity of the entire United States for the years 1568-1989, they operate the Seismological Laboratory at Caltech. As I wrote before, the science of seismology is dynamic and not static and yet you cling to a reference which is twenty-two years old.
 * Be it as it may, why do we not get beyond all this and try to make the article as best as it can be? Perhaps we can word it in such a way as that both figures are represented? It is always much easier to work with rather than against, right? Imveracious (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You changed this. I didn't
Stop arguing with me. (I'm making an effort to deescalate this, while also maintaining my stance.) Around that time he was young and several years shy of making his scale popular. I've already stated that nothing has happened since the Stover & Coffman figure was presented that would amount to an update. If you want to say something like that you're going to have to prove it. Remember, it's not me that changed sourced information; it's you. There's nothing wrong with Stover & Coffman and neither you nor Shyncat have proven otherwise. All entries in the encyclopedia were in balance before it was changed. I work hard to keep the encyclopedia balanced and in agreement and I'm simply restoring it because it was fine as it was. My intention is still to restore it, because there hasn't been a decent reason to change it. I'm sorry to be stiff about this, but the arguments presented have not been good. Show me a report that specifically states what it is that occurred that made this figure of 6.3 so much more accurate that the 6.8. (It can't be done; there are really very few comprehensive reports on this event. I even have one of the earliest that was in the BSSA and I don't think magnitude was even discussed)

I've said this before: There are always many magnitudes presented for earthquakes. You can't say that one seismologist, or one organization got it more "right' than another. Different equipment, location, and interpretation of the slipped area all affect the magnitude presented. All I'm doing is restoring the article to how it was. You even called me a vandal. My work around here involves improving earthquake articles and my style has become one where I really dive into them and make it all it can be. You saw the San Fernando event that I expanded last year; it's not finished, but would like to make it a good article. I don't think this 1925 article has that sort of potential because of a lack of sources so I don't have any plans like that for it.

So, anyway, I do apologize for some comments that were rough around the edges. I still believe that it hasn't been shown that any other source is superior to Stover & Coffman. In fact, the problem of a multitude of sources is not as bad on this one as more recent shocks. That you presented another reference for the 6.3 figure is great. Since earlier this year I already had another fantastic source for the 6.8 figure in List of earthquakes in California and even added here before being threatened with a report to the admins.

What do you want to do? You can't prove to me that the Caltech source is more accurate so are you going to report me as a vandal if I change it back to the magnitude (and source) that the article used for several years? What about sharing the magnitude? And thanks for asking, and it's a fine idea, but I've always thought that it makes sense to stick with one figure. This is continual maintenance problem with these articles; you know, people coming in and changing the figure while leaving the source as is, and just corrupting the articles as if the sources mean nothing. We'd have to include both figures in the list article and the template, and I don't think that's ideal, especially on this one where the presented magnitudes are so different. Not just a tenth or two, but five tenths. That's enormous, so I don't know that that is preferred. Dawnseeker2000  21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

3rd source added for the 6.3 value
Thanks for helping to improve this article. I wish there hadn't been such a clash, and I acknowledge my part in all of it. Since Shyncat added a reference for the fault involved, I had a look, and it also mentioned a magnitude of 6.3. Since I think it's best to use a single value, I changed it to include only that one, and will change the other articles also. At work though, so you can do it or I can get to it at lunch. Thanks, and better days ahead. Dawnseeker2000  17:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had thought that the idea Imveracious had was good and went with it but if you want to stick with just one then Ok. I'm sorry it was such a big todo myself but I really was just trying to make it better. Just a little btw, I know there is no know otherwise but I'm not a "he" as you keep saying, add a "s" in front of the two letters if would please. : ) Thank you and yeah, better days for us all. Shyncat (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)