Talk:2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

I honestly don't think the title is representative of the earthquake. It was a M 7.4 event that caused significant shaking in much of Guerrero and Oaxaca, not just in that city. If this earthquake has indeed caused damage it won't just be in San Juan Cacahuatepec, but all over the epicentral region. Auree ^★★ 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now it should be maintained as it is now. Considering that at least four articles were created about it, and that in Mexico is reported to be in Ometepec and the US in San Juan Cacahuatepec, we should wait until this slow down a little bit. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can never go wrong with something more general like 2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake. The epicenter location says very little about the shaking damage in surrounding areas. Auree ^★★ 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving article to 2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake for now. Pristino (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be bold and do it. Move back if you disagree. Pristino (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Obama

Malia has been reported to be on a school trip in the area, but safe and unaffected. I am not sure this is notable enough for the article, but will bring it here for discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true, I don't see why it is relevant (although it is ironic that her visit tried to demostrate that nothing is wrong in the country). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The second strongest earthquake in Mexico City since 1985"

Some media is reporting that this is the strongest earthquake in Mexico City since 1985 Mexico City earthquake, the first was in 2003.[1], [2], and by a reporter in A las 03:00. Should that be included? With that it would be eligible for DYK. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake → 2012 Mexico earthquake – It is best to rename the page as 2012 Mexico earthquake because even the article's lead section is confused. It states the following, " Its epicenter was near Ometepec, either in the state of Guerrero or Oaxaca, depending on the source." Whats that OR? Its better to rename so as to avoid the confusion. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose "Mexico" refers to the country as a whole, and why do you think this will be the only earthquake in the country in the year? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the article correct it, but consider that all the sources in Mexico state that this began in Guerrero, and the US in Oaxaca. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too early to know what the common name will be and the current name accurately describes the location and the main areas affected. Mikenorton (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as insufficiently specific. I think we have a factual question to settle--the epicenter--which we should not dodge by skipping to the broadest possible geographic term. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earthquake template

the injuries field of the earthquake template doesn't look to be working here - have I just got the format wrong? anyway 11 injuries reported in total so far. EdwardLane (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the casualties part of the infobox, injuries are casualties as well I think. Mikenorton (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake simulation section

The claim for an earthquake simulation coinciding with the actual earthquake is dubious rumor at best. The sources don't qualify as reliable, don't check out, and nothing of this nature has appeared in the local press. Shall we simply remove that section? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as not being based on a reliable source.Dawnseeker2000 18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the 2nd look. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a rumor, nor something dubious, it really happened in Chiapas, where many schools had programed to made a simulated earthquake of 7.9° at 12:00 (CST). [3] Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better reference, the Excelsior is generally considered a reliable source. However, a couple of points - this is a casual mention, evidently written on the day of the quake itself. It's possible a reporter conflated reports of the actual quake with reports of an earthquake exercise, hence the apparently-miraculous resemblance between actual numbers and the ones to be used in the simulation. I haven't been able to find any reports from *before* the quake indicating that the exercise was going to take place and what parameters were going to be used. Second, Chiapas is a long way away from the Oaxaca-Guerrero border - more than twice as far away as Mexico City is. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that simulations aren't relevant there wouldn't be many information about them. In La hora nacional it was mentioned the simulation on 18 March 2012.First podcast Here is one reliable source, and probably the only. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A half-hour voice broadcast, with no transcript and not even an indication of roughly how far into the program the mention takes place? It sounds like there was indeed an earthquake drill, but I'm not going to sit through a half hour of podcast to find it - at least, not tonight. The other thing that jumps out at me is how unlikely preparing for an "7.9" magnitude earthquake is. On most drills I've seen, the magnitude specified (if it is) is in whole numbers - the difference between magnitude 8 and 7.9 is only 25% (10th root of 10 is about 1.25), so that strikes me as unlikely. I'll also comment that we're approaching original research boundaries here. Given what you've uncovered, I'm willing to see a comment to the effect that the Excelsior reported a drill matching the actual earthquake in all particulars. But I think that's as far as we should go - that a particular newspaper reported such a coincidence, not reporting it as fact when the basis seems as shaky as it does, where it has been seized upon by conspiracy theorists trying to build something else out of it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to stay half-hour to hear what the woman said in less than 2 minutes:

Nuevamente te invitamos a que participes en el mega simulacro que se llevará acabo aquí en Chiapas el martes 20 de marzo a las doce horas. Hay que participar de manera responsable.

Tarl don't assume that Mexican media is fabricating things, as apparently you are doing. All the things you said is blatant WP:OR unlike me that I'm demostrating published sources. In fact, someday between 12-18 March a simulate 7.5 earthquake was made in Ecatepec de Morelos. Furthermore, it seems that: a) you don't live in the country so you have no idea what kind of news are broadcated in TV, radio and published media; b) you are assuming that Mexican reliable sources are false, illogical and unreliable; c) if you don't want to listen to a half-hour transmission, fine, don't do it—you are not obligated to do so, but consider that many others will do so, and that {{cite podcast}} exists for a reason.

Also, I want you to note you that on 11 de Marzo says: "Preparate para el mega simulacro de sismo del 20 de marzo", and it was broadcasted:

El 30 de marzo [sic] (The announcer made a mistake; before you want to assume something continue reading/listening to the program) se realizará un mega simulacro de sismo en todo el estado de Chiapas en punto de las doce del día ... ¿Sabías que en el año 1902 en Chiapas se registró un sismo de 7.9 grados en la escala de Richter? ... Jonathan Pérez [Hernández, Dirección de Reducción de Riesgos, Instituto de Protección Civil para el Manejo Integral de Riesgos de Desastres del Estado de Chiapas], nos explica: ... "...Pero que ahora para a esta ocasión que estamos preparándonos para el día 20 de marzo a las doce del día hemos inventado (obviamente es ficticio mucha gente ha pensando que estamos diciendo que va a ver un temblor[4]) estamos pensando que va a haber un sismo de 7.9, esto quiere decir que una alta magnitud" ... "Estamos invitando a la comunidad que ese día, el 20 de marzo, a las doce horas, hagan como si de veras hubiese temblado" ¿Cómo se hace un simulacro? "Bueno el, eh, empieza por hacerse un guión, el guión va a ser un sismo de 7.9, a 85km al suroeste de Mapastepec que puede llegar a originar un pequeño tsunami ..." El próximo 20 de marzo es el mega simulacro a las doce del día. Parte de la cultura de la prevención es la participación solidaria de la población. Infórmate en www.proteccioncivil.chiapas.gob.mx.

and on 04 de Marzo it was announced that a simulate would be done in the then-near future. These simulations weren't planned from one day to another. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. - since this has erupted into accusations of what I think... I grew up in Mexico - I came to the 'states as an adult. My father still lives there (he was born there), so I travel there every year and continue to read their newspapers. I know what to expect there. That bona-fide out of the way... I don't think the newspapers are lying, I suspect sloppy reporting in that particular article of the Excelsior in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. I agree there was an Earthquake exercise in Chiapas, what I find difficult to believe is that it was specified (before the earthquake) as being a simulation of a 7.9 earthquake. The first five minutes of that podcast (I simply don't have the time to listen to podcasts - in this case several hours of podcast) do not specify a magnitude of the quake they are simulating. The reference you pointed to on yahoo.com (blognoticias) seems to be simply a collection of random postings, not a "reliable source". What the points me to right now is a response to the question of someone asking "is there going to be an earthquake on 20 March", nothing about it being predicted at 7.9 Richter. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My God, I wasted an hour to put where they said it would be a 7.9 simulated earthquake. Please read before you want to challenge something. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do regret you wasted an hour on those podcasts - that's my precise objection to using such as references, they are incredibly labor-intensive. I did see your comments, but the way I understand it they had planned an earthquake exercise based on a 1902 earthquake, which was guessed at about magnitude 7.9 (the Richter scale didn't exist back then), so they used that as a rough guide. It is quite a coincidence - but the takeaway I got was they planned an exercise based on a previous earthquake, rather than the planned an exercise with the exact parameters of the quake which occurred. That latter (along with Obama's daughter being in the region) is what's circulating in conspiracy theory groups and was implied by the section removed. You've established it wasn't sloppy reporting , the question is whether an article about the earthquake needs a section on this coincidence. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule (if exists), just because something can be sourced does not mean that it can be added, but if multiple non-trivial reliable sources are backing something it can be added. Perhaps if someday there's enough information or somebody want to to expand this to GA, both content can be added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the simulation portion of the material was OK, but the text in the reference that was provided was definitely something that raised eyebrows. I personally wouldn't add a source like that to an article and just felt removing it altogether was probably easier than fixing it or waiting for another proper source. Dawnseeker2000 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca 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/20120322205139/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2012/usc0008m6h/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2012/usc0008m6h/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://elexpres.com/noticias/news-display.php?story_id=26156

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) 21:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]