Talk:1964 Alaska earthquake

Suggestion for Ranking of events

Please see this statement from the lede, prior to my edit.

"Lasting four minutes and thirty-eight seconds, the magnitude 9.2 megathrust earthquake remains the most powerful earthquake recorded in North American history, and the second most powerful earthquake recorded in world history."

This claim is in conflict with the WP article referenced, which lists it as 4th largest, not 2nd largest, since that ranking article includes necessary qualifiers, such as "since 1900" and "since the use of seismographs"

To resolve this, I added "based upon seismographic measurements" to this article so as to not get in an issue changing the ranking of the event.

I strongly suggest to editors that if you reference another authoritative WP article that includes many tables, qualifiers, filters, etc. that you do not pick a single case and claim that as the fact. Either make the claim and provide the citations in the article you are editing, or say "one of the ..." and provide the link to the authoritative WP article and let the reader research it based upon their preferred criteria.

Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Was there an exodus out of Alaska after the quake? —Klunatorio (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Statistics and info

There is an awful lot of information in the summary with no links and citations. Spiel (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Magnitude

@Dora the Axe-plorer Which source gives a figure of Mw 9.3? The USGS uses Kanamori 1975 for 9.2, which is listed in the 2007 source, which shows all other study estimates at 9.1. Reaper1945 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Technical from the ISC catalog @Reaper1945 Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Download the ISC catalog here Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link "all other studies" for 9.1? As far as I know, 9.2 is the most cited magnitude. 9.3 comes from the authoritative ISC catalog. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's right in the 2007 study that's cited in the lede. That study itself puts it at 9.12, Johnson et al. 1999 at 9.14, Holdahl & Sauber 1994 at 9.07, and Kikuchi & Fukao 1987 at 9.12. Total of four separate studies that give a magnitude of less than Mw 9.2. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently have no basis to include the Mw from research papers while authoritative sources ANSS & ISC exists. There hasn't been enough establishment for magnitudes other than 9.2 for this event. We use authoritative sources because different researchers can produce conflicting results for us to work with and we cannot favor one over another. For this event, the ISC Biblography has 333 papers and many still uses Mw 9.2 (excluding their own findings). However, I have not accessed these individual sources to determine their scientific methods (this will require a larger project consensus with experts in the field) and consider their Mw as credible and I'm in no position to do that alone. Perhaps @Dawnseeker2000 and @Mikenorton can chip in. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Part of this was already discussed with @Mikenorton on the magnitude of the 2004 earthquake where individual studies were used. Those authoritative sources pull from studies to cite, that's what the USGS does as well. Don't see how those studies are unable to be used now when they are all the time. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, except I haven't come across any papers go with magnitudes below 9.2. These studies evaluate the Mw using their own scientific methods so they fall under primary sources. To establish themselves, these low-end magnitudes need to be reflected in the papers citing their respective works. I went through papers cited by the sources you mentioned previously, through random selection, and the often cited Mw is either 9.2 or 9.3. These studies are well cited but their Mw aren't supported. In one example, Moment rate of the 2018 Gulf of Alaska earthquake, uses Mw 9.2 for the 1964 event but the corresponding inline is Ichinose et al (2007). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer Yes, it cites Ichinose et al. 2007, but that doesn't make sense, considering Ichinose comes to a magnitude of Mw 9.12 itself, so I don't know why a study would cite it as higher. This was also an issue on the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake page, USGS cited a study to come to Mw 9.1, but the study itself gives Mw 9.2. Reaper1945 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits on Lists of earthquakes applies the same way. Unless there is compelling, overwhelming agreement that the lowest estimate for Alaska 1964 falls below Sumatra 2004, we stick to the generally accepted ranking. No editors have the command to rank it independently from what the global scientific consensus and sources have accepted.

You may reach out to USGS for comments about the assigned Mw 9.1 meanwhile their reference contradicts that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

References