Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/Archive 3

Fracking?
Does this really deserve its own section? Really? SAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think aliens caused it - that's about the quality of the sourcing on the fracking claim.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure whether it should belong in, but innocent until proven guilty... I tried to better source the section a bit (As I understand it, more that there have been suggestions of a connection in the past, but nothing proven; I don't think anyone's done an in-depth analysis of this particular case yet.) Seleucus (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this brief discussion to note that (a) there has been no fracking in Virginia (hence there can be no causation), and (b) studies have not proven a connection between the quake and fracking. Let's not use this event as an opportunity to advance anti-fracking arguments, especially by describing that there have been studies but not providing the critical fact, i.e., those studies have not demonstrated causation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QJX (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this section when I added my own section on fracking below. My feeling is that there should be no discussion of fracking beyond one sourced sentence (maybe two) that says that some people have suggested that fracking could be a cause of the earthquake but no evidence of such has been developed.  This is not the right article for building the case that fracking can cause earthquakes in general; all that matters in this article is whether fracking is likely to have caused this specific earthquake.  Ketone16 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - one or two lines...or perhaps none since the references are not very strong. Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree.... I think there should be something there, though.. a) because it's been suggested (referenced) and, b) the USGS says that it is possible for this to happen.   Wikipelli Talk   15:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've pruned it to a more appropriate length, although I'm still not entirely happy that the last sentence summarises the source appropriately.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about taking it out of the geology section and moving it down to the bottom closer to Animal Reactions?   Wikipelli Talk   16:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly has more to do with geology than zoos, unless you're implying creating a "fringe theories" section? [[Image:Face-angel.svg|20px]]--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten and shortened the 'fracking' paragraph, and added a reference for Marcellus fracking in W.Va.--LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My concerns re including fracking information has more to do with the references, which I feel are weak, than whether or not I believe it's appropriate in the article. But since it has been decided to include it, I do not feel that it is proper to then seemingly attempt to discredit the possibility with the Marcellus fracking information. Unless it can be shown that 100 miles is "too far" to have set off the quake, I would consider it OR and I feel it should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All mention of fracking has been removed and I agree with the reasons the editor made in the edit summary. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean close to zoos, I meant that I didn't think it really had that much to do with geology in the sense that I viewed the Geology section as having more to do with the plates, faults, etc involved. Fracking (in my opinion) should have been in a 'theorized causes' section which, yeah, could go in Geology.... I thought the same about the sources but questions were raised according to an NBC reference (if memory serves) and the USGS indicated that it was possible. On the basis of those two I was saying it should have been mentioned. Not getting excited over it either way, though.   Wikipelli Talk   20:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WNYC, not NBC... not reliable?   Wikipelli  Talk   20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, there are several reliable sources discussing the speculation surrounding fracking (mostly to debunk it), including NPR and The Patriot-News (an actual newspaper). I've added a brief paragraph about this to the Geology section, with at least one reliable source for each sentence. It is important that we keep original research and speculation out of this section, however, and keep it limited to what the reliable sources have to say about this quake in particular. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Condense geology?
Reading the Geology section. Seems like it is a little more in-depth than it needs to be in an article about an event. I suggest removing
 * "The Virginia Piedmont area was originally formed as part of a zone of repeated continental collision that created the ancestral Appalachian Mountains, a process that started in the Ordovician Period with the Taconic orogeny and finished in the Carboniferous Period with the Alleghenian orogeny. The reverse faults formed during the various orogenies were partly reactivated in extension during the Mesozoic Era as the supercontinent Pangaea broke apart. During the Cenozoic Era, some of these structures have been further reactivated in a reverse sense."

Because I don't understand a word of it? maybe ;) But it's a little heavy in my opinion for an article about an event. I think taking it out still leaves enough of the underlying geology. Interested readers can look in other articles for more of the geologic history. Any opinions?   Wikipelli Talk   14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no. Its explaining the rock formations in the area. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  14:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article is about the 2011 Virginia earthquake, not Minor damages and inconvenience caused by the 2011 Virginia earthquake. If anything we need more about the geology. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not just an event -- it's an earthquake, a geologic event. I definitely think the geology section needs expanding, to give more background and context for the earthquake. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for piling on here Wikipelli, but I can hardly believe that you have suggested to remove the geological information from a geological event! This information is extremely interesting.  Did you know that during the Ordovician Period we were still connected to what is now the west coast of the UK, and as a matter of fact I have collected fossils here in Maine that perfectly match the fossils found in that area - a problem that troubled geologists for many years until the theory of continental drift was eventually proven to be correct.  Oh well...I do love geology!  In fact, now I'm thinking that I should add a line or two about Gondwana to the geology section that I'm working on at the Minnehaha Park article. ;-)  Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :) That's why we have discussion pages. I have nothing against geology and do find it interesting, I just thought there might have been more here than was needed to describe the earthquake. I can see the points made here.    Wikipelli  Talk   16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the section quoted above and I acknowledge that it's not that accessible, so I will try to make it a little less 'heavy' if I can (no guarantees). The problem with a small intraplate earthquake like this one is that you can't just describe it as part of an active plate boundary, but have to explain why there are a bunch of faults with a long and rather complex history that may currently rupture. Nor can you tie directly to a known fault (despite what it says in the article at the moment (OR warning) I'm sure based on published maps that the Spotsylvania Fault is not to blame - it dips southeast and the epicenter lies to the northwest of its surface trace so it doesn't exist beneath that point (end OR warning)) as the USGS summary says. Mikenorton (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I questioned the Spotsylvania fault thing here. If it's crept back again without better sourcing it should be removed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the source used quotes Chuck Bailey, a structural geologist from William and Mary, who produced this - it might be a misquote but probably better to wait and see if it's either backed up by other sources or denied by them. I'll try to reword it, as the text is currently contradictory. Mikenorton (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fracking
I suggest that the discussion of fracking in the Geology section be reduced to one sentence. Right now it takes up about half the section, but thus far presents no evidence that fracking actually caused the earthquake. Several sentences attempt to build the case that fracking can cause earthquakes in general, but discussions like that belong on the article on fracking, not this one. All that matters in the section on the geology of this earthquake is whether fracking actually caused this specific earthquake. If evidence of that is developed it can be added to the article later. Ketone16 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the discussion on fracking above and have continued the discusssion there. Ketone16 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the fracking section, and agree it should be reduced to one sentence and moved to hydrofracking with a link "more on hydrofracking and earthquakes. Good idea.  Should I go ahead and do that?  Does anyone have any other opinions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedwardHall (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After more than a week and no new information or more reliable sources, I'm less inclined to support having anything about fracking in the article. All we have is, "some people on the web wondered if fracking could have caused it", "USGS says that fracking can cause small earthquakes", and, "there's no relationship between fracking and the va earthquake". That last bit really just takes it off the table for me. There's nothing to tie fracking to the Va earthquake at all other than "several websites speculated" (quite nebulous). I read today about something called haarp and yes, I found websites that speculated about that being the cause... hmmmm  :)   Wikipelli  Talk   19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shhh! Don't go giving people ideas, they're hard to get rid of!--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is now on dozens of blogs and I feel that it should stay in the article. Something that was not newsworthy became newsworthy, and now needs to be confronted with the facts. Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "now on dozens of blogs" constitutes verifiability for Wikipedia and "newsworthy" is somewhat subjective. Objectively, if it was newsworthy, I'd expect it to be in more reliable news sites. I didn't know what fracking was before this and it's obviously an issue with a lot of people, but at the end of the day, there's nothing connecting this earthquake with fracking at all other than speculation and conjecture. If a study comes out in the days/weeks/years to come that says, yes, fracking in WV caused this quake, then it should be included. I just don't think we should lower the requirements for reliability. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop an editor from adding a paragraph about (shhhh) haarp.... or God's displeasure.... or aliens.... For the record, I'm not saying that fracking theories or suspicions are 'fringe' by any means, I don't know enough to say that. But there's just nothing at all connecting the quake with fracking right now.   Wikipelli Talk   21:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

West Coast twitters "mock" East Coast: Notable?
The fact that some people on facebook and twitter issued posts mocking the reaction to the earthquake hardly seems notable. On their own such comments would fail wp:web and be speedily deleted. We certainly don't see such comments about mockery of a locale from the rest of the country when, say, a not-guilty verdict in a murder trial stuns outsiders. If there is some actual notable quote from some notable person, outside a predictable late-night monolog joke, which has actually itself been the subject of ongoing or widespread comment then it should be mentioned. If not, that there were twitter posts that themselves generated no notable reaction is hardly relevant to the article. Hurriquake (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * agree   Wikipelli Talk   02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No discussion about keeping it. I removed it on the basis of the two comments above. Anyone feel strongly about putting it back? I just feel its unnecessary 'fluff'.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   12:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fault Determination
The only reference to the fault on which the earthquake may have occurred is to an article the day after the earthquake which puts it as possibly along the Spotsylvania Fault. This was an error due to the lack of certainty in the data on the initial quake and its earliest aftershocks. While there is not yet enough aftershock data to determine whether the initial rupture occurred on the Chopawamsic Fault or the Long Branch Fault, or whether it was a multiple-fault rupture, subsequent aftershock data has proven that it could NOT have occurred on the Spotsylvania fault, but had to have occurred to the northwest, one one of the parallel faults in the Virginia Piedmont. Perhaps in the meantime, until the proper fault or faults have been identified with certainty, we can remove the unreliable determination and citation, or change the language to "Early estimates placed the rupture in the vicinity of the Spotsylvania Fault and other parallel reverse thrust faults in the Central Seismic Zone." or something of that nature.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For a lay explanation of the issue I'm trying to correct, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinborland/6105614658/in/photostream which is a short explanation I wrote. Note that the Spotsylvania Fault, on this chart would be far to the right on the graph, beyond any reasonable margin of error based on the data the USGS has now released.  See also http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinborland/6095870460/in/photostream for additional background and a relevant map.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not against it, per se, but the information is accurate as it stands. The fault has not been determined and the Spotsy fault was suggested. We don't have a source that says "other parallel reverse thrust faults in the Central Seismic Zone". If we can get sources that say different, I'm all for making it more accurate.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   11:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) As I said in the 'Condense geology?' section above, I'm sure that you're right. I doubt that we will ever know which structure was responsible, but it's obviously not the Spotsylvania, but that is our original research, so we have to wait until somebody publishes that in a reliable source. For now, I'll look at rewording that section based on your suggestion (it was already reworded in an attempt to downplay the role of the Spotsylvania fault and reconcile the interview with Chuck Bailey with the USGS summary). Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find a source. I'm sure we're not the only ones that have analyzed the data.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this from the Virginian Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, which is probably the basis for writing something like your suggestion Kevin. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That demonstrates the issue very well. At least from that chart, anyone can see that the epicenter was quite northwest of the Spotsylvania fault, and since the fault lines are mapped on the earth's surface, and the faults dip southeast underground, the quake couldn't have possibly occurred on the Spotsylvania fault.  The NRC (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has some very detailed information online regarding the minor faults in the area which are not pictured in that chart, such as the Long Branch Fault, which may have also been at play in this series of quakes.  I got the data from the reports in Dominion Power's permit application for constructing the North Anna Power Station nearby.  Unfortunately, only the text, not the referenced diagrams in the documents are available online.  The text does a great job of defining the fault lines relative to the phyiographic data from the USGS, if not visual, though.  Just to throw it out there, the application papers state that the Long Branch fault, which now appears to have been the source of at least one of the major aftershocks of this earthquake, is an "incapable tectonic source."  Well, maybe not when a 5.8 earthquake next door triggers it!Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not knocking the scientific evaluation made by the folks who did the analysis for the plant. This earthquake is very special in that while there may have been may others like it periodically, say every hundred years or so, in this region, this is the first one where we have really good data to analyze and come to accurate conclusions.  Given the same data they had to work with when writing up their application, I probably would have came to the same conclusion.  Due to modern technology and the magnitude of the event, this earthquake is truly remarkable in that it is the first opportunity for us to learn about earthquakes along Appalachian faults in this kind of detail.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added some details about the closest faults to the epicenter and removed the specific claim for the Spotsylvania fault, as it really doesn't make sense and Chuck Bailey does not repeat that claim in his own blog. Mikenorton (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"is an earthquake" or "was an earthquake"?
Whether it is grammatically correct or not, saying "The 2011 Virginia earthquake IS a...." is as offensive to my ears as nails on a chalkboard! :) Common usage, common sense even, suggests to me that the earthquake didn't exist, then it did for 30 seconds or so, and now it doesn't exist. It WAS an earthquake. I !vote first for leaving it as is and saying that it WAS an earthquake. If that causes problems, in the interest of compromise and to avoid going back-and-forth over a tiny point, I would offer: "The 2011 Virginia earthquake, a magnitude-5.8 Mw intraplate earthquake, occurred in the Piedmont region of the U.S. state of Virginia on August 23, 2011, at 1:51 pm EDT (17:51 UTC)."   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   12:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think either are correct right now, depending on how you look at it. The mainquake WAS an earthquake, but the aftershocks have not yet ended, so the earthquake IS still technically happening until the sequence decays.  I like "was" better, though, in the context of the article.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aftershock sequences can go on for a hundred years or more - I don't think anyone would say that the 1868 Hawaii earthquake 'is' anything. Definitely go with 'was'. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do some people think that they are so incredibly brilliant that their edits, though they are at odds with dozens of other editors who have made hundreds of edits, make any sense what so ever? When in doubt, look up previous articles for your answer.  In this case, the answer (not that it should not be obvious), is "was" not "is". Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more personal attack like that, Gandydancer, or another rude edit summary and I'll file an ANI for incivility. This is about the article, not you and your emotions.


 * The problem is not the tense of the verb, but the artificial lead sentence which shoehorns in an artificial bolded article title as if the article were about the title we have given it, and not the thing itself. The original lead simply addressed what occurred, past tense, while the current lead with the bolded title defines what the title applies to, present tense.  The proper solution is to word the lead to address what happened, not to try to define what the 2011 Virginia earthquake is or was.  If I can think of better wording I'll post it. Until then, please try to grasp the point I am making rather than referring to how other articles may or may not be written. Hurriquake (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the lede, mainly because I think that opening statements of the form 'the 20xx somewhere earthquake was an earthquake' are rather clumsy. This may or may not address your concerns Hurriquake. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like compromise rather than consensus, but I know what you mean about the redundant, "earthquake". I'm looking it over now just because the magnitude seems buried. I guess only so much information can go in that initial sentence. :)   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   11:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * after more coffee, I think it looks pretty good.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   13:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to condense again?
Looking at the article now, 2 weeks after the quake and, except for my local news, I'm sure it's off most news source's radar.... Is it time to look at condensing again? I'm thinking about a single paragraph talking about how far from the epicenter it was felt. After PA, NJ and NY there is no damage noted. Essentially, the one or two liners just say it was felt here, here, and here. Should New England, Midwest, Southern States, and Canada be condensed to one paragraph? The goal, obviously, is to show the large area over which it was felt, but not with individual states (with no damage) listed. Thoughts?   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   21:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the most notable earthquake in the lives of most people on the North American east coast. The article will remain a reference for years.  I do agree with the sub-goal of making the article concisely digestible, but the proper way to do that is not simply to delete information that some readers may find useful, but to separate out subtopics, such as impact, into their own articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not out to delete anything as much as condense it into a better form. I think it's absolutely possible to illustrate the immense area over which it was felt without unique sections for each state - a map, expanded description in the lede or Impact sections, for example. I'm only throwing out the possibility that we can do better without listing Maine (no offense to Maine) or Southern States in their own sections/subsections. Open to ideas, here. I don't have a knife in my hand ready to cut or anything. :)   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, having a bold section in this article just to say that the tremors were felt in Maine does seem a bit too much clutter. What I would suggest would be splitting out the entire impact section as is to its own article with no material deleted.  Then, in this article we could (1) define the extent of the felt tremors (I think it's now Illinois, Quebec, New Brunswick and Georgia, the furthest noted damage (I think Brooklyn) and (2) pare the rest of the impact section down to notable occurences of damage or evacuation in separate sections for the DC Area, the North East, the South East, the Midwest (old NW Territories including WV) and Canada.  Facts that are implied by the above statements (that the Earthquake was felt in Maine) could be deleted entirely from this article, and be left in the separated out article.  I am going to create Impact of the 2011 Virginia Earthquake now since it seems a harmless thing to do. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As promised, I have created Impact of the 2011 Virginia earthquake using the Impact section and material from the lead of this article. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok.. I'll take a stab at condensing the bulleted areas that had no damage, only tremors.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   19:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering that we are not having a problem with the article growing too long, I would suggest that condensation is good but deleting anything, including Maine, would not be a good idea. There is value to keeping this old stuff.  See for instance the Haiti quake, the Gulf oil spill, or the flu pandemic - most of that old information remains, even though it seems unimportant and sometimes even silly at this point.  It is nice to have this historical information, IMO.  Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. There's no reason to have a second article on the quake's impact. No one cares about the earthquake except for the impact. Condense the article if you like, but I can see no reason to split it into two. PRRfan (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feeling about the second article. If the community is ok with it, then so be it. My only interest is in this one. If a second article is wanted because maine and alabama are subsumed into a more condensed article, I'm good with that.   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gandydancer.. I didn't notice your message. I don't think I'm interested in deleting anything. But I think the article would be better without lines that say "the earthquake was felt in this place but there was no damage".... One of the things that makes this quake notable is the fact that it was felt over a large geographical area.  That has to be prominent. But I think it can be stated in a paragraph rather than so many subsections listing states/provinces where it was felt.  Civic pride aside, I just think it's not great to list every place it was felt along the way. State the extremes, is my thought.  Taken to its logical conclusion (just for Virginia), what's to stop us from listing Richmond, Petersburgh, Wythe County, Newport News, Virginia Beach, Danville, etc etc etc.. places where it was felt but no damage occurred. Just my opinion, and that's why I expressed it here - to see how others felt. :)    Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we seem to be of the same thought. I never was so much for listing each state under separate headings anyway.  Others may see it differently, but I always look at old articles and pretty much follow their lead.  I agree that this quake may have been small potatoes as far as size goes, but it was unusual in its vast "did you feel it?" expanse and its rarity.  Certainly, there is not enough information for a separate article.  Nice work Wikipelli! Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the rarity of earthquakes in this region, this topic barely warrants an article at all let alone a split into multiple articles. I agree that some of the information is superfluous. For instance, the section on the Southern States, "The earthquake was felt in several southern states as far from the epicenter as Alabama, but no damage was reported" is unnecessary.  Deterence  Talk 08:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, Deterence...the article is here and will likely stay. I've just been slammed at work this week and really having problems coming to terms with just how I'd like to see the article streamlined.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There certainly was no good reason to split this article. Why don't we just leave it as is?  As far as size goes, it wasn't much but the affected area was very unusual, as the article shows quite well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's best to not change the sections where damage is described. I think that the multiple lines where there's a source stating it was felt here but no damage or injuries occured could be deleted - with or without adding to the article's lede ("The quake was felt across more than a dozen U.S. states.... " or the first 2 paragraphs of the impact section.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia mention
I love Wikipedia, but is this really notable? "Wikipedia had an article dedicated to the earthquake by 2:03 PM, 12 minutes after the event, and it was mentioned in two other Wikipedia articles even earlier.[106]"--Metallurgist (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say yes in the context of Internet and social media section. Certainly the twitter information is ... um.. interesting and I think the plug about WP is worth keeping. Not that I'll be all upset if it's not there. :)  Cheers!   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   17:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is notable as is an unusual geological event that doesn't happen on the eastern seaboard very often like every hundred years. As well has been mentioned in newspapers and news reports on the television. As well this article has been nominated for deletion several times, but the discussions always come out as keep. One of the deletions for it to be nominated were on this page WP:AFD As well as some discussions about it in some of the past archives. I think as the result keeps showing that this is a notable article, as well as it currently has quite a bit of sources to backup the information and the sources are from notable sites. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Magnitude of 1897 Giles County Quake
I noticed the change this morning and I started looking at the references. First, I found that the two references for a magnitude of 5.9 were identical and I removed one. The closer I looked, though, I found that the reference to 5.8 and the reference to 5.9 BOTH were drawn on the same source: Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 by Stover and Coffman. In Google books I found Stover and Coffman's orginal text and, on page 377 they indicate a magnitude of 5.8. It seems that this ought to be used as the magnitude of the Giles quake and that the USGC (which cited Stover and Coffman) got it wrong. (strange side note, the chart in Stover/Coffman on pg. 376 says 5.60). Am I reading this wrong? Stover and Coffman themselves cite sources for their data but I am having trouble tracking down the originals so far.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I did some more cleanup but now, it appears to me, ref #s 4,5,7 are all just representations of data taken from source #6 (Stover and Coffman). It's my belief that the USGS sites that are cited have indicated 5.9 erroneously since they cite Stover and Coffman as their source. My inclination is to use only Stover and Coffman's orignal text for reference and remove others.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The USGS are reliable but not infallible. I found another reference for 5.8 in terms of body wave magnitude here - note that this was a new estimate at the time. Of course, another source may be quoting a number on a different scale. The Stover and Coffman bible gives values in Mfa (magnitudes calculated from the 'felt area'), which may not be the same as Mb, Ms or Ml, let alone Mw. There is nothing inherently unreliable about estimating magnitudes from historical intensity data, if the data is good enough. BTW I changed your heading from 'intensity' to 'magnitude', hope that's OK Mikenorton (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine changing the language! That's why I came to you!  You know more than I do. At any rate... You favor leaving the 5.9 as, well, USGS 'synthesis' of sources and data?   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   17:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would instead probably use the 5.8 Mb of Nuttli et al. that I linked to above, without any of the others - at least they're clear about what magnitude they're reporting. Mikenorton (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I revised the link - please let me know if you think it's alright. I'm almost thinking that a resolution (in case other editors want 5.9) would be a footnote section discussing the various criteria. I'll leave that for smarter people than I.
 * I'm concerned now about the section in the lede that says it's the largest east of the Rocky Mountains since... The link takes the reader to a list of states and their largest quakes. Is that not synthesis? I'm going to look for a source that states that as fact.   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   18:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources that say the strongest 'East Coast' earthquake since 1897 (e.g. ) - we could go with that wording if you don't find a source for the Rocky Mountains. Mikenorton (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look some more later. I'm stepping away from the computer awhile now. :) One of my problems with editing the lede for the review is that (linguistic arguments aside) the earthquake is an event. The entire description of the event is in the lede. Thus, it's difficult to remove all references. OR.... re-describe the 'event' in the body of the article. I'm feeling that the cost estimate really ought to be down in the Impact section, etc. I'll hit it again this evening.   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Magnitude
The summary refers to a magnitude 5.8. As there are several inconsistent measures of earthquake magnitude, I suggest that this figure needs to be qualified. Which scale is used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)