Talk:2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes

8.7 or 8.9

As per most of the news sources, the magnitude estimate has been revised to 8.7. I've updated the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngineerFromVega (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Earthquake report Sri Lanka and India issued tsunami warnings while Thailand urged people on the Andaman coast, a popular tourist destination, to move to safety. And the USGS have revised the quake to 8.6 at a depth of 22.9km, estimating that 547,000 people will have experienced very strong shaking. Also the epicenter appears to have been 500 km from the Sumatra coast giving some small amount of time for people to get to higher ground. EdwardLane (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake in January 2012

We may need to rename this as there was another major earthquake: id:Gempa bumi Aceh Januari 2012 : January 11, 2012 - 7.3 Mw earthquake - 388 kilometers Southwest of Meulaboh, Aceh - no loss of life. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Might need to rename to 'earthquakes' (plural) as a second 8.6 has apparently just occured in the same spot. EdwardLane (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Source? HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc00090da.php Ticelon (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it's since been revised down to 8.2 - and it looks like that's backed up by the link Ticelon posted (thanks Ticelon). Still it's a fairly major aftershock. EdwardLane (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cost on infor box

I'm suggesting we have a line for cost on the infor box Distributor108 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cost estimates will be wrong for at least a few days. I think it is better to leave this info to be explained in the prose until good data is available. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Article name

Is "Aceh earthquake" really the best name for the article? I mean, it happened in the ocean off of Aceh, but wasn't exactly in Aceh. Most sources are either using "Indian Ocean" or "Indonesian". I'd prefer "April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake", in the style of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. I♦A 11:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably that makes sense. However, I suggest we wait a little and see how the sources develop. --Tone 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's 500 km or over 300 miles from Aceh. "Indian Ocean" makes more sense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And we only need April it there is another major quake in the same area this year. Mikenorton (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

*Support Name change to "2012 Indian Ocean earthquake"; for now given there is no other Indian ocean earthquake this year. If another occurs change name to "April 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake" If again this month "April 11th 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake" Distributor108 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also agree that 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake would be the bast title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Talkpage moved separately, as there was a redirect before. --Tone 12:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tsunami?

News in Thailand reported that there are 10-80 cm. tsunamis. Krit-tonkla (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Such a post really needs to include a source, so that the information can be validly included in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Refer to Evaluation of tsunami flooding using geomorphologic evidence a Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Bari, Italy

   b Department of Science of Materials, University of Salento, Italy
   c Geo-environmental GIS and Remote Sensing Laboratory - LaGAT-Ta, II Faculty of Sciences in Taranto, University of Bari, Italy

• Received 28 January 2008. Revised 28 January 2009. Accepted 28 January 2009. Available online 8 February 2009. Regarding minimum tsunami height (HT)Distributor108 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the minimum height of a tsunami?

I think no minimum because tsunamis is a special type of waves Krit-tonkla (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tsunami warnings across the Indian Ocean have now been lifted. Randor1980 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a tsunami in Indonesia. 3 ft. Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued advisories. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreshock section

I removed that section because of the distance of the event from the epicenter. That was even another plate border (Indian/Arabian plate). Any assumption of that quake to be related is highly original research if any at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It bothered me too. HiLo48 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

Can someone find a map of the entire area where the earthquake was felt, showing rings of how strong the shaking was?-96.237.1.158 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ga.gov.au/earthquakes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Vandenberg (talk • contribs) 2012-04-11T13:50:04‎

Royal Geological Survey?

Is the Royal Geological Survey mentioned here is this? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The BBC have messed up - Roger Musson works for the British Geological Survey. Mikenorton (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Source?Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[1]. Mikenorton (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agf as same person and  DoneLihaas (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the BBC have corrected this in their most recent version - [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Magnitude revised to 8.6Mw

The magnitude of the earthquake has been revised to 8.6Mw, as per USGS, therefore, the magnitude data needs to be correct. I have updated the data? Salman 05:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)

unusually large magnitude for strike slip fault

According to this and this (translated from icelandic) an earthquake of this magnitude being caused by a strike slip fault was rather unusual, as the magnitude was greater than had been thought possible for any strike slip fault (I think 8 was considered the maximum possible magnitude for a strike slip fault but I can't find a good source for that). And also of interested the particular spot for this earthquake was thought (by encyclopedia britannica) to be a good example of an aseismic ridge. EdwardLane (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I had placed a section in the article about this matter but someone decided to delete it and I'm not sure as to why. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (US Central)

I was assuming that the earthquake related to some sort of incipient transform boundary between the Indian and Australian parts of the Indo-Australian Plate. The focal mechanisms of the mainshock, the largest aftershock and a previous earthquake in the same area are consistent with dextral strike-slip movement on a fault zone running roughly north-south. The aftershock pattern is very unusual with several potential lineaments highlighted. I'll try to dig something more up on this and the unusual magnitude. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a tectonic setting section based on the USGS summary poster and another ref that describes the strike-slip reactivation of N-S trending fracture zones in the plate boundary zone that I described above (not actually a transform, more oblique convergence). Still nothing about the unusual magnitude though. Mikenorton (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

this reference (already used in the article) certainly seems to suggest this might have been the record high magnitude for a strike slip type quake.EdwardLane (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian Meteorology and Geophysics Agency

The article mentions Indonesian Meteorology and Geophysics Agency. Is this an alt name of the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

I've rewritten this section, hopefully addressing some of the concerns that it was 'stilted and overly technical'. It's difficult to express this in simple language unfortunately. Mikenorton (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the "Tectonic Setting" section

Somebody has inserted a section near the top of the article entitled "Tectonic Setting". This section is utterly incomprehensible to most people due to overly technical language and jargon, and furthermore it runs counter to Wikipedia's stated aims for articles to be written in plain, understandable English.

I tried to rewrite this section to reduce the amount of jargon, but it was immediately reverted.

I think we should try to re-write the section on this talk page so that it is comprehensible. First, here is Wikipedia's statement on this issue:

"Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them accessible to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it; or tag it using or for other editors to fix."

Here is my attempt to make the section comprehensible.

Tectonic setting The earthquake's epicenter was located within the Indo-Australian Plate, which is divided into three separate plates, the Indian, Australian and Capricorn Plates. The boundary between the Indian and Australian Plates converge at 11mm per year. Fracture zones spread away from this area. The initial earthquake and magnitude 8.2 aftershock were classified as shift-strike types, meaning that the plates shifted against each other horizontally, rather than vertically. This meant that the earthquakes displaced relatively little water, and were less likely to cause a tsunami. Since 2006 there have been three other earthquakes in the area with a similar faulting style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)

Whether a section is too technical for typical readers or not is an extremely debatable matter. Personally as a high school student, I understood about 95% of the content in that section. I tend to see the readers of Wikipedia as intelligent beings who are capable of looking up the meaning of terms that they don't understand. It will be almost impossible to write fully understandable content for the entire readership of Wikipedia while retaining information for avid enthusiast in a concise yet detailed manner. In addition to that, the asteroid belt article, or any solar system article for that matter are prime examples of articles that have achieved featured article status while retaining extremely technical content so thus my point is that I strongly oppose removing any content that is properly sourced or adding any unnecessary explanations (explanations that serve no purpose in conveying the main point of the article - the purpose of this article is to inform readers about the events of this earthquake while providing some brief context not lecture them about how slip strike earthquakes occur) YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

The earthquake's epicenter was located within the Indo-Australian Plate, which is divided into three separate plates, the Indian, Australian and Capricorn Plates. The boundary between the Indian and Australian Plates converge at 11 mm (0.4 in) per year. Fracture zones spread away from this area. The initial earthquake and magnitude 8.2 aftershock were classified as shift-strike types, meaning that the plates shifted against each other horizontally, rather than vertically. This meant that the earthquakes displaced relatively little water, and were less likely to cause a tsunami. Since 2006 there have been three other earthquakes in the area with a similar faulting style.

I have no idea if that is more comprehensible to the average reader, but it is poorly written. The fracture zones don't spread away from anywhere, and a boundary can't converge. The term shift-strike is never used at any level of understanding to describe strike-slip faulting (or indeed 'slip-strike' as the article now has it). We shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy in an attempt make technical things understandable. Mikenorton (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes agreed - the shift strike was clearly not correct - especially as the article they used as reference called it 'slip-strike' which I thought was strange but I had been willing to put up with that(I thought perhaps I had it round the wrong way in my head), but strike-slip seems correct and we should probably change it to say that. EdwardLane (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to change back to something like the text that was replaced by Newzild. I will once again try to make it more accessible, although, as YuMaNuMa says above, without losing the detail and adding wordy explanations. I haven't yet done this because Newzild asked for a discussion and I'm still waiting for a response. Mikenorton (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll go have a look at the history and see what I see EdwardLane (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think after looking there I'd reword it to say something like this.EdwardLane (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 earthquake's epicenter was located within the Indo-Australian Plate, which is divided into three separate plates, the Indian, Australian and Capricorn Plates. At their boundary, the Indian and Australian Plates converge at 11 mm (0.4 in) per year, and to accommodate that (NNW-SSE directed oblique convergence) the boundary is a broad zone of diffuse deformation, and fracture zones fan out from this area.

As part of that deformation, north-south trending fracture zones have been reactivated from the Ninety East Ridge as far east as 97°E.

Both the initial earthquake and the magnitude-8.2 aftershock were classified (based on their focal mechanisms) as slip-strike types, meaning that the plates shifted against each other horizontally, rather than vertically. As a result, the earthquakes displaced relatively little seawater and were less likely to cause a tsunami.

Since 2006 there have been three other earthquakes in the area with a similar faulting style. All of these (five) earthquakes are consistent with either left-lateral slip on SSW-NNE trending strike-slip faults or right-lateral slip on WNW-ESE trending strike-slip faults, both consistent with the direction of convergence.

I don't see why we need to explain ordinary English words like 'oblique', 'trending' and 'diffuse', but I won't object to them being linked, if that's the general feeling. 'slip-strike' has to go - it's not how these faults are normally referred to and the source used to support it also uses 'strike-slip' on several occasions. The fan of fracture zones is not mentioned in any of the sources, so that bit can go. The reference to the lack of tsunami should be in the earthquake section I think, supported by that source - it doesn't add anything to the tectonic section in my view. The individual strike-slip faults are not plate boundaries so I've changed 'plates' to 'crust on either side'. As far as 'trending' is concerned, that could be replaced by 'orientated' or 'oriented' depending on your preference. With those changes it becomes:

The 2012 earthquake's epicenter was located within the Indo-Australian Plate, which is divided into three separate plates, the Indian, Australian and Capricorn Plates. At their boundary, the Indian and Australian Plates converge at 11 mm (0.4 in) per year in a NNW-SSE direction, which is accommodated by a broad zone of diffuse deformation. As part of that deformation, north-south trending fracture zones have been reactivated from the Ninety East Ridge as far east as 97°E.

Both the initial earthquake and the magnitude-8.2 aftershock were classified (based on their focal mechanisms) as strike-slip in type, meaning that the crust on either side shifted against each other horizontally, rather than vertically.

Since 2006 there have been three other earthquakes in the area with a similar faulting style. All of these (five) earthquakes are consistent with either left-lateral slip on SSW-NNE orientated strike-slip faults or right-lateral slip on WNW-ESE orientated strike-slip faults, both consistent with the direction of convergence.

That's my proposed version, but I'll leave someone else to add it if that's the decision and I welcome any suggestions for improvements. Mikenorton (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd be happy with your proposed version. It was typo on may part to have slip-strike and strike slip. Whether to link 'oblique', 'trending' and 'diffuse' depends on who you think the average readership is. The words are all moderately uncommon, and 'trending' now tends to mean 'popular on twitter' in modern parlance, so some link to orientation or similar seems sensible.

I took out 'oblique' and replaced 'trending' with 'orientated' but left in 'diffuse' with the wikt link. I've changed the tectonic setting section in light of this discussion and moved the part on minimal water displacement associated with strike-slip displacement to the 'Earthquake' section along with its supporting ref. I left this version for discussion for more than a week, so I hope that nobody reverts it back without discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Deaths

The article says "Four people in their 60s and 70s in Banda Aceh, and a 39-year-old man in Lhoksemauwe died from heart attacks or shock." There's no source for that sentence, but after the next one, about injuries, there's a reference that says "Jakarta BNPB". What's that? It's not a hyperlink, or a Wikilink. Google suggests some connection with The Jakarta Post, but we have no publication date, no page number, etc.

I defend Wikipedia against its critics by pointing to the referencing as a major strength. The reader can follow claims in an article to their source. But I'm really struggling here.

It seems a stretch to mention deaths due to heart attack as if they're directly attributable to the earthquake, but maybe they are. Or are they. How can I check the source? Is it reasonable for those deaths to be mentioned? HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt they would conduct a complete coroner's inquest into their deaths so it would be unlikely to ever know whether their deaths were directly attributed to the earthquake. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be a later statistical analysis to see if there were excess deaths by heart attack at the time of the earthquake, this is about the only way of estimating how many are likely to be earthquake related. Mikenorton (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But why is that sentence in the article at all? The absence of a checkable source bothers me. I'm tempted to boldly remove the sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If there's no checkable source, then best to remove it. Mikenorton (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The refs are in the infobox item "Casualities". e.g. [3] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John Vandenberg. Never thought to look in the Infobox for the refs. (Should we tidy that up?) So we have this wording - "Five people died after two major earthquakes struck..." And I'm still not sure what it means. It doesn't actually say that the earthquake caused their deaths, but I guess we're meant to infer it. Pretty crappy source, if I may say so. HiLo48 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/13397953/indonesian-quake-reawakens-tsunami-fears-in-asia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5vC4K2OKx?url=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/13397953/indonesian-quake-reawakens-tsunami-fears-in-asia

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) 06:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes. 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/20120418063825/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc000941x.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc000941x.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707045541/http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1334151031 to http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1334151031
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415041414/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/update-indonesia-lifts-tsunami-warning-residents-return-home/510788 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/update-indonesia-lifts-tsunami-warning-residents-return-home/510788

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) 21:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)