Talk:1964 Alaska earthquake/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 1964 Alaska earthquake. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing data

Is there an exact date/time of this event? --195.146.109.168 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 February 2006‎ (UTC)

Perhaps general statistics like Richter measurement could also be added.-Etoile 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know how to add it to the information page, but it was March 27, 1964 at 5:36:14 PM.--69.162.114.55 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 March 2006‎ (UTC)

Second largest

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article lists that quake as the second largest too (and the Great Chilean Earthquake as the largest). Which one is it? It's not really obvious since the 2004 one apparently wasn't measured correctly. Tinus 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends. How do you define size? Fault rupture area, magnitude (Mw, Ms, ML), or socioeconomic impact? --Drdan 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Magnitude

The intro says 8.4 Richter scale, but the first paragraph says 9.2 Richter scale. Which is it? --193.113.48.11 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

According to a newer edit, 9.2 M_w on the newer moment magnitude scale, and 8.4 on the old Richter scale. The whole article needs references though. --Closeapple (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric Units?

Why are the measurements specified in metric units with US units in parentheses? Since this occurred in the US, I think the main focus should be on US measurements with metric units in parentheses. Oldiesmann (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:UNITS, I went ahead and modified the article to use US units as the primary measurements. Oldiesmann (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Friday and Earthquakes

While I don't dispute that there was an Earthquake on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, describing it as a holy day associated with an earthquake seems very odd - it's hardly the major component of the story, which that wording could be taken as suggesting. Alternative wording suggestions welcome... Eftpotrm 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Good Friday/earthquake connection was an important omission from the article - it might be called the March Earthquake if it weren't for the religious angle. I agree that Good Friday isn't Earthquake Day, but I can't think of a better way to summarize the fact, short of including the entire note (Good Friday is associated with the crucifixion of Jesus, followed by an earthquake according to Matthew 27:51–54)) into the text of the first paragraph. Art LaPella 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm expanding the note to explain this better. Art LaPella 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was - it got reverted. Art LaPella 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is awkward. Does this sound any better?

This Alaskan earthquake is also known as the Good Friday quake because it occurred during the Christian holy day of Good Friday, the day associated with Jesus's crucifixion, on which an earthquake reportedly occurred.<ref>An earthquake occurred at the time of Jesus's death according to {{bibleverse||Matthew|27:51-54|31}}.</ref>

By the way, was this article originally called "Great Alaska Earthquake"? I ask because normally the bolded phrase in the lead sentence is the name of the article, which isn't true here. -- CWesling (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to match sources/precedent here

I was looking over the sources and citations, only one of them calls this the "Good Friday Earthquake", a 2004 USGS press release and it literally puts the title in quotations. The rest of the USGS pages (see links at the bottom), along with those of the NOAA and private links like this don't mention Good Friday in the title at all and call it either the 1964 Alaskan/a Earthquake or the Great Alaskan Earthquake of 1964.

Therefore in order to both conform with the majority of our sources AND the format of our earthquake articles (ie 1812 New Madrid earthquake or 1959 Yellowstone earthquake), I'm changing the name to 1964 Alaska earthquake. Any alteration is welcome, but I submit that making the title of our article the same as a press release "title" that doesn't appear in any other source is original research on our part. Please note I have no problem with mentioning in the text that the quake fell on Good Friday as it's mentioned in the sources, just not as the title. (Plus earthquake shouldn't be capitalized anyway.) Anynobody(?) 09:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts About Worldwide Effect

"Twelve people were killed by the tsunami in Crescent City, California. Other towns along the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Hawaii were damaged. Minor damage to boats reached as far south as Los Angeles.

Since the entire Earth vibrated as a result of the quake, minor effects were felt worldwide: several fishing boats were sunk in Louisiana and water sloshed in wells in South Africa."

I'm not exactly sure this information is believable. I mean, given the distance these events took place from the epicenter, even with the size of the quake...they're pretty coincidental. I can see maybe the tsunami in California taking place, but the boat damage in Hawaii, the wells in South Africa, and the boats in Louiasiana seem to be strong items of coincedence, that could have been caused by numerous other things at the time.

I dunno, I guess I'd just like to see a whole lot more solid evidence before I can pass this particular bit off as fact.

Cheers.

--IndigoAK200 07:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the first paragraph is plausible. I'd be surprised, actually, if absolutely nothing happened as described in the paragraph. However, I can't imagine how the second paragraph could be true. If water is sloshing in a place on the other side of the world, how could anything have survived in Alaska? Nyttend 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I too was skeptical of those claims but I read the source listed (a news release from the USGS) and it does in fact cite those effects so they appear legit. --Jespley 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This story is consistent with other tsunamis described at Tsunami#Historical tsunami. Art LaPella 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am from Alaska and it is true that boats sank in Lousiana and tsumanis hit hawaii, japan, oregon and california, we were there for the quake. also after shocks were felt for upto 18 months following the quake, since the population of alaska was so dense at the time that is why the death toll wasn't larger, but entire neighborhoods were lost in Anchorage and most of the downtown had to be rebuilt, if ever in Anchorage visit earthquake park, lots of good information and pictures there that tell the story and show the horrific damage that was done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.67.72 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The earth vibrated by 9-point earthquake

I will have to say there's a grain of truth, there has been a 8.8 quake in Chile this morning and was felt throughout South America. An earthquake nearing the 9 point on the richter scale can be felt anywhere 3,000-5,000 miles from the epicenter! This was the case in the 2004 Sumatra quake/Indian Ocean tsunami, the 1960 Chile event epicentered near Valdivia can be felt worldwide and with the 1957 Androff Islands, Russia quake was similar to be felt all the way in Moscow, across the world's largest country by land area size. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, more work to be done on this page?

I recently came across a book from 1967 about the earthquake. I'm currently poring through it to find useful info. Anyway, a photo caption I noticed while adding to another caption made me wonder if we're being too reliant on Wikipedia upon copying and pasting from U.S. government web sites. The photo caption in question reads, and I quote: "The Turnagain Arm area of Anchorage was heavily damaged." I'm pretty sure that the photo is of Turnagain-By-The-Sea Subdivsion, which is generally referred to as the "Turnagain" district of Anchorage, even though historically, that may be proven to be not necessarily the case. However, the subdivision itself actually sits next to Knik Arm, not Turnagain Arm. I only bring this up because I could have sworn that the earthquake article was nominated for non-online delivery of Wikipedia. Are we really in this to deliver factually inaccurate information simply based upon which sources we're consulting and which sources we aren't? RadioKAOS (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing my part, I rewrote the offending captions. Also, I uploaded hi-res photos from the earthquake to the Commons, if anyone is interested in using them. More to come; I was writing out detailed photo descriptions in advance, otherwise I would have posted them all at once.RadioKAOS (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture Caption Misleading

I think that the picture caption is fairly misleading: "... trees that were killed and preserved by salt water". The picture shows what appears to be heavily-iced remnants of vegetation, and while this is a typical winter occurrence the caption leads the reader to believe that they are covered in crystallized salt. Am I correct in assuming that this is ice and not salt crystals? This should be clarified, or a picture of the area in the summertime could be uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.186.179 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in Alaska, and I have driven by this spot before. You are correct in assuming that there are ice crystals in the trees and that there are not slat crystals. I have changed the picture caption in hopes that people will not be confused and think that the trees are covered in salt crystals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEP257 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1964 Alaska 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) 23:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)