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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
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.
It's right in the 2007 study that's cited in the lede.[1] 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply