Jump to content

Talk:2011 Christchurch earthquake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge

The earthquake, as it ocurred in almost the same area as last September's, is most likely to be an aftershock, and this article should be merged into 2010 Canterbury earthquake. Diego Grez (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Give it time. This event will attract a flood of edits in the next few days, and it'll be easier if this remains a separate article while that happens. Once things settle down, we can make a more considered decision. --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessarily an aftershock and even if it is, it may be better dealt with as a separate article. The reports at this stage indicate it is worse (in terms of damage to lives and property) than the earlier quake. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh of course I have been informed of that. Giving it time may be fine :) Diego Grez (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Avenue and Mattinbgn, leave it for the moment. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No way! This is proving to be much more damaging, with e.g. multiple fatalities where the 2010 quake had none. The epicentre of the 2010 quake was near Darfield, well out of town. This one is near Lyttleton, much closer.--Hugh7 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME also applies here. From the looks of it, there will be major news coverage, and they are not going to be referring to it as the "2011 Aftershock of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake" Ravendrop 02:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to give it time. These shocks could be foreshocks and would make it a separate event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.154.49 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

there is a need for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.143.137 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
They're calling it a separate event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.154.49 (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A geologist has been on, saying that it is a seperate quake. From an OR point of view, it may even be an extension of the fault from the original quake, but seems to be a seperate quake particularly noting it now has it's own pattern of aftershocks! (e.g. not just a random, isolated large aftershock, but has had lots of aftershocks after the quake). It is probably related to the Darfield quake in some way, but if 'the big one' happens in May 2011, they won't be calling it 'May 2011 aftershock of 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake'... Buckethed (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is technically an aftershock or not is irrelevant. It's a seperate and notable event and there's no way the two articles should be merged. The only reason to merge would be if one of the two events didn't pass the notability guidelines for a standalone article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct: The question of merge or not merge is not decided by some quibbling pseudo-taxonomic pedantism. It is decided by such things as whether article X is significant enough in content and especially size, to stand alone, as this article clearly is. If there was only enough content to sustain a paragraph or two, of course you'd consider merging into an existing 'parent' article. However, it seems likely that this article will itself generate split-offs, having as it does, an unequivocally more significant impact than the 2010 earthquake. Wotnow (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say that merging this article would be analogous to merging United States to United Kingdom since it was at one time a colony. The 2011 quake is distinctly a notable event in its own right. 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

News on mainpage of this event

Why isn't this there!!?? The earthquake 5 months ago went straight up onto the "in the news section" within like an hour of it happeneing and this earthquake has been far more destructive and yet there's nothing there about it - can someone please remedy this; I would if I knew how. Kotare (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is taking place here. Please comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been posted to the front page. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Environment Canterbury have a website devoted the earthquake at canterburyearthquake.org.nz which may provide useful up-to-date details. Also civildefence.govt.nz/. ChiZeroOne (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Some video sources are also available:
65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

news.com.au streaming live video

There is a site that is streaming live video in Christchurch http://www.news.com.au/world/quake-aftershock-hits-christchurch/story-e6frfkyi-1226009960218 Kg4gsn (talk) 22 February 2011

Another Australian news site: Ninemsn.com.au states 98 are dead and 226 are missing. Adamdaley (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Civil Defence

"Civil Defence" is mentioned in the article, but isn't explained. Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (New Zealand) isn't mentioned yet. Does "Civil Defence" warrant a separate article? Civil Defence/Transarmament arn't much help. We have a redlink of Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups at Emergency_management#New_Zealand and Coordinated Incident Management System#Coordination_between_the_emergency_services. Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 could also be useful; it is mentioned at State_of_emergency#New_Zealand. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to the Ministry. I'm sure this and some of the other articles you mention could be improved, but I'm not sure another article on Civil Defence is warranted. --Avenue (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
How about a note at the top of Civil Defence to direct the reader to a more appropriate article? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ChristChurch Cathedral spelling

My apologies for changing the spelling on this to 'Christchurch Cathedral' - This is incorrect. I can see from the history this change has been made and reverted several times.

Just to clarify, the name of the cathedral is *not* the same as the name of the city. The name of the city is 'Christchurch' whereas the name of the building destroyed in the quake is 'ChristChurch Cathedral' with the second C intentionally uppercase as it is the name of the church. This becomes clear when looking at the website - http://www.christchurchcathedral.co.nz/ --Jwntr

It's OK, I left a hidden note about this hours ago. – SMasters (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the source of this spelling? The trick of running two words together with no space and a capital letter in the middle is very much a computer-age practice. There is probably some earlier post-1960 precedent for the practice, but it can hardly have been done in the 19th century, when the Cathedral was built. Either it was two words, or there is no capital letter, or it was named in this fashion in very recent times. Koro Neil (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Does it matter for the purposes of this article? The name of the Cathedral as it stands is supported by reliable sources, no matter if it was named 100 years ago or last week. Therefore, the CamelCase name is the name that should be used in this article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out by Jwntr, the source is the official website of the cathedral. Scoop.co.nz also uses this spelling. It is clear that the cathedral itself wants to brand it this way, and as such, is using it officially–they even use it in the official title for the dean of the cathedral. Just because other media outlets spell it with a lower case doesn't mean we have to follow them (probably auto-corrected through spell-check). As I have mentioned in the hidden note, changing it to lower case will cause the wikilink to break – Christchurch Cathedral, Christchurch. In addition, the actual Wikipedia entry for ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch uses this spelling throughout, so we need to be consistent. So, let's let this rest for now. – SMasters (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Koro Neil (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

Re this edit, should File:Chch Cathedral 2011 Quake.jpg be re-added to the article. IMHO, it is a far better picture than that showing the cathedral before the damage. Although non-free, appropriate licences are displayed, and I have contested the proposed deletion on the grounds that we are unlikely to get a non-free photo showing the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, although I'd love to be proved wrong on this. At the moment, the people of Christchurch have higher priorities than providing Commons with licenced images we can use. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is really stretching the fair-use criteria, which are quite strict anyway. There will likely be a free-use image available at some point, no perhaps not of the immediate aftermath but one still representative of the ruin. If that is the case then the fair-use claim is invalid. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Even in that photo we can see there is someone else taking a photo. There will surely be hundreds of photos taken of the church before the rubble is cleared. It's not unreasonable to assume one of them will make its way online under an appropriate license.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that image is replaceable, perhaps not immediately but within a reasonable timeframe. There is no real need for an "immediate aftermath" image. Any photo showing the 2011 damage would do. I also think the old photo has some value in illustrating damage from previous earthquakes. --Avenue (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the Cathedral article's talk page, Schwede66 has an image of the damage - but understandably Chch wikipedians have other priorities right now. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The file page states that the image will be deleted tomorrow (24 February 2011) because it fails the non-free content criteria, unless someone can edit it to meet it. GWPSP090 (GO!) (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've now withdrawn my objection as there is now an image we can use. File:ChristChurch Cathedral - 2011 earthquake damage.jpg is available on Commons, and is an excellent substitute. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Objection reinstated, Commons file tagged as copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not a copyright violation - the image is freely licenced. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChristChurch Cathedral - 2011 earthquake damage.jpg for details. Being tagged as a copyvio does not necessarily make it a copyvio. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tense

Large sections of this article is written in the present tense. This will need to be corrected after this event is over156.62.3.23 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is normal. That's why there's a "current event" tag at the top of the page. – SMasters (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename or Redirect

In the media, this earthquake is being referred to as the Christchurch earthquake, not Canterbury earthquake, so under the guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME perhaps it would be more appropriate to rename the article as "Christchurch Earthquake (2011)", or at the very least create a series of suitable redirects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.220.98 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Christchurch earthquake already redirects here. – SMasters (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a better title. --Avenue (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reporting

I feel in a state of frustration, amounting to despair over the extraordinary failure of the media to report the damage to the ChristChurch Cathedral accurately!

It seems as if today's reporters are totally, completely, absolutely (any superlative you can think of) incapable of looking, seeing, assessing and stating facts! Given that it takes (in Australia and New Zealand) very high pass marks to study journalism at University, how can they be so utterly stupid and unreliable? If anyone out there can answer, please do!

The problem lies in the use of the words "total", "absolute", "complete", "ruined", destroyed", "crushed" etc. Terms like "utterly destroyed" and "totally crushed" are being bandied about without any consideration of what these fairly simple second-grader terms actually mean, and what implications they may carry when a member of the public reads or hears them used inappropriately.

Examples

  • Early film footage of the earthquake, which I will locate and reference, came from a helicopter which flew directly over the cathedral, while two reporters described it, at least twice, as "totally destroyed". This is the cathedral they were talking about, not its spire, and they had the building, (or film of it), clearly in view while they were uttering these words. That is, clearly visible with its walls and 90% of its vast slate roof intact. They finished the video with "...well, the cathedral's gone....". What sort of idiots could be employed by a news service to so grossly misinform their public? Anyone who heard the report on radio rather than seeing it, would gain a completely false impression.
  • Even the BBC can't get it right. BBC, [4], "First look inside collapsed Christchurch Cathedral", 22 February, 2001. Note that none of the exaggerated verbal reporting ("collapsed cathedral", "ruined cathedral", "nothing but wreckage" and "whole side") is supported by the evidence of the film itself. It is clear from this film that the "whole side" (i.e. the north aisle) is not destroyed, just the section immediately adjacent the tower.
  • NINEMSN: "Bus totally crushed". It clearly wasn't, and although there were many casualties, people on the less damaged side of the bus were rescued.

And of course other news services have followed the lead. SENSATION wins over fact every time, particularly where headlines are concerned. Can we trust them to get any of the facts right?

What most worries me is that if this sort of stupidity prevails in the professional reporting of something that is clearly visible, how can we, the public, possibly trust these stupid clowns to accurately inform the world over events that are politically sensitiive, and possibly imflammatory? Are the English language reporters who described recent events in Egypt and Tunisia more or less reliable?

Amandajm (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason why some reporters use slightly unintelligent words like that is because they may need to say it more simply for the viewers or readers to understand, or they don't know what to say in such situations. but I do agree they use those words a bit exaggeratedly, the ChristChurch Cathedral is not completely gone; only the spire is, some people need to take a look at things more clearly. G₩¶S¶090 (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Not the place to voice your rant about journalists. 118.92.149.112 (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a rant, but a valid rant, it's alright to rant with valid information on Wikipedia. I think. G₩¶S¶090 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree; we need to be careful to avoid linking to sources which are using hyperbole or are too dumbed down, as the result is that our readers may think we havent accurately summarised the situation. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is reliant on these news sources for accurate facts. Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since as an encyclopaedia we rely on sources, we can only be as accurate as they are. This is why as I've said elsewhere it is best to state what sources claim, rather than making statements of fact. ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we should report what sources say, but not uncritically. Where there is variation between sources, we want to be as accurate as the most reliable sources, not the least. --Avenue (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I mean. I mean it is better to say "x said this happened" rather than "this happened and here's a cite". It emphasises that this is merely this specific source's account and may not be "the truth". I agree with what you are saying but that was not what was being said above, nothing there about conflicting sources. All the media has been sensationalising the accounts, for example the damage to the Catholic Cathedral which I added. All the early reports were describing it as "half collapsed" so that is what I said they were claiming, however as more information later emerged the reality appears a bit less dramatic. If that is the only available account it is still perfectly valid and we are no less accurate than the sources allow. So soon after a dramatic event inaccurate reporting is almost inevitable, even discounting sensationalist journalism. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A valid point it may be but this is not a discussion forum, it is a place to help in writing the article. Unless the rant has a point regarding that then no this is not the place for it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the relevant point is made by John Vandenberg above. Where there is a choice, we should assess the reliability of the available sources, and prefer the more reliable ones. --Avenue (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

aftershock

The NYT source[5] is being used to support the current event being an 'aftershock' of the 2010 earthquake. They report that the United States Geological Survey said it was "part of an aftershock sequence [from the 2010 earthquake]". Are other similar organisations generally agreeing with this? Should we say who is calling it an aftershock? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Should we say who is calling it an aftershock?". Yes, usually the best solution to a potentially contentious statement is to take a back seat and let the sources do the talking. Wikipedia doesn't need to (and shouldn't) make statements of fact in such cases, merely highlight what reliable sources have said. If there are statements from other reliable sources to the contrary then they can be added too. ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
GeoNet also says "Seismologically, this is classed as an aftershock because of its relationship to the ongoing activity since September last year."[6]. XLerate (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This new article, from NZH, confirms that it is an aftershock Hamish Campbell: Technically it's just an aftershock. It's a good article with a lot of technical information. I don't have time at the moment to work on it, but if anyone is free, please do have a look at it. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a professor saying it was not an aftershock, but a new quake: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/4711189/Tuesday-quake-no-aftershock I guess the new series of aftershocks from the quake, and the fact that the original aftershock series have now stopped, would support this too. Buckethed (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

recent aftershocks

There have been a lot of reports that a lot of small quakes have occurred in the last day, and some are saying this is hampering rescue efforts. Do we have an accurate count? (I heard numbers like 60) Should we include this? John Vandenberg (chat) 05:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See Christchurch Quake Map for an interactive time-lapse model of all shocks since 4 September 2010, as well as a daily count of shocks (63 on 22/02, 76 on 23/02 and 21 so far today). What it doesn't say is how many of those aftershocks are hampering rescue efforts or how many are only noticed by seismic monitoring equipment. FanRed XN | talk 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

International assistance

Details of the rescue team from Taiwan.[7] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, added. F (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between what was reported yesterday concerning the NSW/QLD USAR contingents. The article now states 75 + 75 crews while former information stated 74 + 74. Is there any info on this difference? --Matthiasb (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Messages

Any reason why the Flags were removed? In similar events, responses and messages have had identifying flags for the country of the message, it shows clearly the nation and allows people to scan through finding a message their looking for. Such happened at the death of Pope John Paul II and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.118.198 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Basicially, this is very short, and should be in prose form. In addition, Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of New Zealand. Why should she have a flag shown when she is addressing her own people? But ultimately, unlike a very long list, this is just too short to require any icons in the prose. – SMasters (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, why do we publish this stuff? It's always anticipated and mandatory after any major tragedy. Various world leaders are sympathising/condoling/embracing/praying/whatever. Is ANYONE impressed by this stuff? Really, what purpose does it serve for WP to publish it? Next it will be complaints that the uplifting comments by the King of Skunkistan have been omitted. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. I expect that this will be OK for now, but once some time has passed, all these will be removed as per WP:Recentism for this particular section.– SMasters (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Named" vs "identified"

I was directed here searching for names of the dead, and found it was because "...the dead have been named". I think it would be clearer to say "the dead have been identified", since their names are not yet public. --Hugh7 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the bulding

Canterbury Television

A photo of the collapsed building, before it collapsed, and after would do to illustrate the damage, and why officials say it is unsurvivable on the CTV article.

65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Grand Chancellor

Is there an article on the Grand Chancellor? Being the tallest building in Christchurch, and also being threatened with collapse, it should be notable enough for one. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Skyline photo

This may be the first photo of a city skyline after a quake. http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/20119/quake_expand.jpg This article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708402 says it is on twitter maybe he can be contacted--78.3.208.186 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Official name

"officially named the 22 February Earthquake". This term is used at the EQC site but I don't see EQC claiming it to be an official name. Nurg (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And who gets to "officially" name an earthquake anyway. The government? The news? The geologists? The public? Me? etc. Ravendrop 10:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The pet thing

A hundred people were killed, billions of dollars of damage were done...and some cats and dogs were scared. Am I the only one who thinks one of these things doesn't belong in this article? (I'd just delete it right away, but I want to be sure I'm not in the minority here.) —Brent Dax 11:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, the "pet thing" is getting coverage outside New Zealand: Here from the Sydney Morning Herald is an article entirely devoted to the pet issues post-quake. EdChem (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A humane society will always care about the effect of natural disasters on domesticated animals [8] [9] [10]. I see nothing wrong with the subdued paragraph on this topic in the article. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph about pets. IMO, it didn't demonstrate relevance. rv if you think it does. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think some small mention is reasonable. I have added one sentence with much less emphasis. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral casualties

Currently we report 98 deaths of which 22 were killed by the tower of the cathedral (almost one-quarter of all deaths). If this is correct and not just early incorrect reports, it needs some expansion in the article. Why were so many people there - is it a popular tourist vista? Is there a busy bus stop there? Where the deaths in the tower or outside it? Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OR, but everything I have seen/read about the spire is that it is a very popular place to climb and see a good view of the city, as you suggested. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"Currently we report 98 deaths of which 22 were killed by the tower of the cathedral." No, that is not stated anywhere in the article. The 98 (now 102) deaths are those that have been confirmed, i.e the bodies have been recovered and are in the morgue. There are no reports that any bodies have been pulled out from the cathedral tower, the 22 is an estimate. Therefore the 22 cannot be part of the confirmed deaths.
Secondly the death toll will sadly rise and it will probably take some time to retrieve everybody, they will eventually be a smaller proportion of all those killed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, tourists could access the tower to gain panoramic views across the central city. Not sure whether any of the deaths would have been people climbing it at the time, but it's quite likely. Grutness...wha? 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Has there been any updated information on this claim? Surely they have searched the area by now. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
They only finished searching it today. I understand the delay was due to the need to protect searchers from masonry falling during aftershocks. The article is now updated. --Avenue (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral

Why a capitalized "C" in "Church"? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:2011 Christchurch earthquake#ChristChurch Cathedral spelling above. – SMasters (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings

I've cobbled together an article on the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings, a category I building. The Stone Chamber has collapsed, but I haven't had time to write anything about the earthquake damage in that article. Schwede66 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

However neither of the two links provided for this do mention those buildings what should be corrected (thats the CBC and the ABC sources), possibly they use a different designation for those buildings. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

60 minutes report

This might be useful in expanding the article: http://www.3news.co.nz/Christchurch-quake-60-Minutes-special/tabid/371/articleID/199579/Default.aspx

65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Worst natural disaster

Just a minor query (which, given the rising death toll is sadly likely to become moot)... this is being called the worst natural disaster in NZ since 1931, yet technically wasn't Tangiwai a natural disaster? It was the result of a lahar and even though the deaths were on a train, it's no less "natural" than a bus being crushed. Grutness...wha? 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly wrong (based on the current confirmed death toll). I'll remove it. --Avenue (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If the current death toll was final, I would agree that the statement is inaccurate. Since everyone expects the final death toll from the earthquake to exceed the 151 deaths at the Tangiwai disaster, the statement is reasonable, but should be sourced. It is still quite possible that the death toll will exceed the 256 of the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake and become the worst natural disaster in NZ's recorded history (there may have been greater ones in earlier times, as detailed in Hostile Shores). I see that Avenue has removed the statement in the meantime.-gadfium 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Technically Tangiwai was a rail accident caused by the train failing to stop before running on to a bridge damaged by a natural disaster, it was not in itself a natural disaster. If the lahar had hit the bridge piers while the train was on the bridge it would have been a natural disaster. The claim that the 2011 Christchurch earthquake is New Zealand's worst natural disaster since 1931 is correct, although as Grutness suggests it is likely to become moot soon enough. FanRed XN | talk 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The Tangiwai disaster was not caused by a train failing to stop before crossing a broken bridge - the disaster was largely unavoidable. It occurred at 10:30pm on a dark night and signalling back then was tablet and semaphore with no track circuits. The only warning the train had was a man waving a flash-light running towards the train, and you try stopping an 11-carriage steam-hauled express train with 700 metres warning. But with the toll at 145 and still rising, it is likely Chch will pass Tangiwai's 151 so will put it out of contention
For the "Worst natural disaster/earthquake in New Zealand since 1931", we can always say "as of 26 February". Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've restored a modified version of the statement to the lead, saying it's NZ's deadliest natural disaster since at least 1953. That is true regardless of whether Tangiwai is considered a natural disaster or not. Yes, the escalating death toll will probably soon make this moot. --Avenue (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This sentence is awkward. I will modify it to say "one of the worst", and omit the year, which does not mean anything to the vast majority of readers. We can update it if it does become the worst. – SMasters (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage

Is this section really necessary? I think it's assumed that all major natural disasters receive major attention and it's not really a formal or standard area in earthquake articles. ceranthor 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. It should be removed. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree vociferously. Expand. FanRed XN | talk 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree, remove it. It's tacky and stupid 125.239.131.110 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit pointless to me, with hints of cultural cringe perhaps? I think many people see the news in their own nations so realise that incidents like this are routinely covered by international agencies. Format (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand what you're suggesting by your "cultural cringe" comment. I couldn't care less about whatever foreign media made it an item on their news or sent reporters to cover the story and that part should be dumped. I'm more interested in the sociological aspects of New Zealand's coverage, as shown in Broadcasters strive to avoid ad clashes and the way New Zealand media represents New Zealand's dealing with an internal tragedy - cultural cringe or not. Unless you can point me to the wikipedia article, Media coverage of disasters or something similarly named covering topics as noted in Media and Natural Disasters or that addresses the noted hyperbole earlier on this page then just where do you suggest I stick it? FanRed XN | talk 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In it's current state, i.e. "The earthquake received extensive local and international media coverage. It made headlines in the BBC News, Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC" is completely pointless and should be removed. – SMasters (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The section 2011 Christchurch earthquake#Media coverage as it stands now basically says no more than "a lot of stations covered the earthquake". As you would expect them to. At the moment, it adds nothing to the article. And I think the cultural cringe comment is about "gosh, look how many overseas networks covered the story". WWGB (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I count 4 Support and 1 Oppose (not counting my own and the IP, which are both Support). I will remove it. – SMasters (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Aftershocks from first quake stopped - any 'official' discussion of this yet?

If you go here : http://magma.geonet.org.nz/resources/quakesearch/ and then do a search for 21st Feb to 26 Feb, you see the distribution of aftershocks.... They are around the new quake epicenter.

However, if you then do 16-20 Feb, or similiar 5 day runs over the last few weeks, you see there were *constant* aftershocks to the east of the current quake...... there are e.g. 15-20 of these on each 5-day run. But, from 21-26 Feb, there have been maybe 1 or 2 aftershocks there - quite a change after months of aftershocks.

This is 'Original Research', and also talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the topic. But I was wondering if someone can see if this has been noticed or discussed by the geologists yet? I can't find anything yet!Buckethed (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, this is still the case! (the old 2010 aftershock sequence has all but stopped since the 2011 Quake); still can't find any discussion of it, but I guess there will be eventually given it does show (something) about the relation between the two quakes Buckethed (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a nice map by two GNS scientists showing this here: Why the 2011 Christchurch earthquake is considered an aftershock. The surrounding discussion talks a little about aftershock patterns, but as the title indicates, focusses on explaining why they consider the 22 Feb quake an aftershock. --Avenue (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Retention of information for eventual past tense

After saving this comment, I'll save a change to the article. This change is my attempt to amend the text regarding casualties and missing, to (a) allow for updates, but (b) retain information for the eventual past tense in which the casualty section will be written. After initial speculation, the missing figure (the figure itself - I realise individuals comprising the figure may have been deleted and added) appears to have settled around 200+ since about 24th February, as far as I can tell. I see a figure for 226, and I recall the figure 228 from news reports. Meanwhile, the death toll has increased. Eventually, the relevant section will be written primarily in the past tense, and it may be desirable to document not just changes in figures as time went on, but also figure stability. That is, there will be a chronology, and these figures will be part of that. This occurred to me as I checked the article. I realise that what is occurring is that as new official figures become available, new citations are added.

I think it will be easier to work the article text to allow for change while capturing useful citations as they arise, rather than keep losing them with article updates and have to trawl backwards later. Hence my amendment. I'm sure you get my drift, and if you can improve on my efforts, all power to you. Wotnow (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember with any changes you make that there is also the unfortunate possibility of some of those critically injured succumbing to their injuries - this may also require changes in the figures. Grutness...wha? 09:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mexico involvement

The BBC makes mention of a Mexican contingent assisting in rescues in one of it's articles (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12586274). Does anyone have any further details so that it might be added into the article? Wheatleya (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also seen photos of the Mexicans, but no RS to state who they are and how many. Gwinva (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Finally found something [11] Mattlore (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Peak ground acceleration

It appears that an extremely high peak ground acceleration occurred during this earthquake, which is why we're seeing such immense damage. The MSM are making some references to this, so I've built up a paragraph around it. Basically, ground acceleration in the city centre was 1.8 times the acceleration due to gravity, which is immense for an earthquake (Haiti was only 0.5g). There's not much comparison or discussion trickling into MSM yet, but discussion on seismic engineering and geologists blogs that I've stumbled across suggest this might well be the highest ever recorded in an urban area, and they're also discussing how and why it was generated by a 6.3 (in fact, many are anticipating some fascinating conferences in the next wee while as they rewrite codes and expectations). It also exceeds the expected loadings for most buildings (one not quite RS suggested pre-80s buildings were not expected to withstand more than 0.5g.) I am sure more of this analysis will be available to us from RS in the next few days or weeks. However, we have the raw data from GNS. It would be good to get this information into the infobox, since it is so significant. Perhaps someone good with templates could add a field in Template:Infobox_earthquake, so we can indicate 1.8g (city centre), 2.2gg (epicentre). Gwinva (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made changes to the template so the information can be displayed. Gwinva (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks good. --Avenue (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if more emphasis could be given to how the Darfield earthquake's PGA measurement of 1.25g to 1.26g (depending on rounding) in Greendale (a relatively unpopulated area) was by far the highest recorded in New Zealand up to that point. PGAs dropped to generally 20-30%g by the time they got to Christchurch, mostly higher on the west side of the city (where I am). PGAs for last Tuesday's event measured up to 2.2g in outlying city locations to the southeast and 1.8g in the central city I think, so literally 10 times higher. Both these points (the record breaking Greendale measurement, and order of magnitude increase in the city) help put the incredible destruction into context, in my mind at least. When I first heard the epicentre was under the Port Hills I feared that Lyttleton and Sumner had been flattened with extreme loss of life - I was pleased to hear the relative lack of deaths in these areas, but shocked that modern earthquake proof buildings in the CBD had pancaked. It was bad enough here, on the relatively unaffected west side of the city. We had no power for 3 or 4 days so news was patchy, and I haven't been following the science of this one yet. Note some references say the Greendale PGA was vertical, this is incorrect. The GNS data clearly shows the 3 components at the time of the peak g, it was primarily vertical but that component was under 1g from memory. Apparently this latest quake is different, near the epicentre (as expected) it is mostly vertical. Apparently there are large boulders weighing many tons on the Port Hills which have moved some meters (could be exaggeration, this is third hand) without changing orientation or leaving any trail on the ground. It doesn't take a PhD in physics to work out what happened there. I can't find the reference, but a bit of search should turn up the scientific excitement over the unprecedented 1.25g measurement - only mentioned in passing here: http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/historic-earthquakes/top-nz/quake-13.html --Adx (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that input (and personal experiences!) - I've found myself quite fascinated by the science of this quake. Certainly, the science and engineering blogs I've come across on my googling show some people from all over the world are pretty excited/worried by this; it certainly appears pretty unprecedented for a 6-magnitude. The media seem to have been latching on to this a bit more in the past day or so, so hopefully we'll come across something useful for us. It's certainly caused some extraordinary effects in Chch - I think when the analysis is done, we'll find that the toll could easily have been far worse. Gwinva (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's GNS strong motion detector detector position and reading, scaled and overlaid "transparent" over map of the area. http://i51.tinypic.com/3013j7n.png That gives a more clear indication of positions of strong motion detectors and readings taken relative to Chch suburbs, roads, and other landmarks. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be used on the page because of google map's copyright. (GNS material can probably be used, so long as source is accredited to them). So readings in and close to the CBD are 57.4 - 80.2 %g. Evidence of seismic "lensing" is also apparent with an apparent fan of very high PGA recorded at near right angles to the fault, extending North to NE of the indicated epicentre and still >1g at (near) Bower Ave (highest pga may more normally be directed toward the ends of the section of fault that ruptures). I was in my house on the hills about 1.5km NE of the epicentre marked on that map at the time of the quake. At this location there seemed to be minimal "build-up" in shaking intensity - perhaps the hint that something was coming for a fraction of a second, then it just hit like a bomb. Movement may have been more vertical than lateral, but there was sufficient lateral force to implode brick veneer walls (well tied back to timber frame) on the elevation facing the epicentre, explode walls facing away from the epicentre, and damage from lateral shear on the sides. An adjacent approx 10 year old substantial reinforced concrete dwelling has had the top level of 2 displaced by about 150-200mm. This type of damage (from severe shaking, rather than ground subsidence or liquefaction) is common in the Mt Pleasant to Redcliffs areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.58.176 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disaster management

Having seen the rather disjointed "recovery and response" section in the article, I thought it might be a good idea to write a more structured "disaster management" section, outlining how all the agencies worked and what actually went on. I threw down a few paragraphs in my sandbox, based on what I had read, with the intention of finding the references and filling them in, rather than trying to build a new paragraph from short statements (as we currently have). I won't have much time to spend on it over the next few days, but will add bits in as I can. Anyone is free to visit User:Gwinva/sandbox2 and make any additions or changes. Gwinva (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Disaster management is incorrect and should be replaced with Emergency management. A good supporting reference for this is the fact that we have CDEM (Civil Defence and Emergency Management) and the Ministry for Civil Defence and Emergency Management. For more background see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Management —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.80.62 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Gwinva (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Antarctic ice break out

I have removed the reference to the Christchurch earthquake causing the break up of the sea ice in McMurdo. This ice was breaking out long before the earthquake. I left the reference as that can also refer to the rest of the statement about researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.175.253 (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

5.9 aftershock?

Most reports, ingluding the GeoNet website state that the strongest aftershock measured 5.7, striking at a depth of 6km occurring on Tue Feb 22 13:04 NZDT 2011.

This is fine, however if we have a look on christchurchquakemap.co.nz, we can see that a 5.9M shake occurred at a depth of 7km at 14:50.

GeoNet do not appear to have a record for a quake occurring at precicely 14:50.

Additionally, in a video posted on Youtube by GNS Science, Fry refers to a 5.9 shock occurring. Fry also refers to shakes measuring 5.7 and 5.6, (though he doesn't mention a 5.5 like GeoNet do) suggesting that the 5.9 has not been confused with one of the other large shakes.--124.197.15.171 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New quake in Wellington!

Breaking news on Sky, 4.5 magnitude quake hits Wellington. New Zealand Herald story. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

University of Canterbury

I have added some information to University of Canterbury about the effect on the university, including students being offered exchange places at other universities for a semester. Don't know if any of this may be relevant to the main article. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Two photos of cathedral

Any reason why we need two photos of the de-spired ChristChurch Cathedral in the article? Both photos were taken front-on and there is little real difference between them. Delete one? WWGB (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably no need for both in this article, though there is increased damage evident to the left hand side of the rose window in the later photo. Melburnian (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


compassionate airfares

The airline also offered immediate family members of casualties flights to and from Christchurch for NZ$ 50 one way from any New Zealand, Australian and Pacific Island Airport, and NZ$400 one way from other international destinations.

Actually this was offered to everyone who was in Christchurch at the time of the quake, with preference given to tourists wishing to get out, and immediate family members (of casualties, the missing, and for example those needing medical support) trying to get in. At least 50000 people took up the offer (I think this is up to 80000 now). It was for both directions, allowing return travel (provided travel was completed in February, or by the end of March on standby). References: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4716395/Christchurch-earthquake-Thousands-snap-up-cheap-airfares http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708919 This offer was praised by those running the emergency response as a way to reduce the burden on the city's resources, but with many (most?) residents considering a break (me included) but choosing to stay to rebuild their businesses and protect their property against looting (this was on TV). --Adx (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic impact: $1.5 billion vs $1.0 billion excess

Hi Wallie, you keep re-inserting this paragraph in the "Economic impact" section:

This statement appears to be in direct contrast to the statements in the EQC's official documentation, whih states that as this is "another disaster within a three year period", the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake being the first one, the EQC pays out the first NZ$1 billion in claims, and the reinsurance companies are liable for all amounts between NZ$1 billion and NZ$3.5 billion. The EQC again covers all amounts above NZ$3.5 billion.[163][164] The current EQC contract runs until June 2011.

The problem is that the sources for this paragraph are not great, being [12] an unsourced mention in an undated third-party document, and [13] a mention in an EQC annual report from 2005-2006 that describes a different excess figure ("attachment point") and makes no mention of a three-year period. Also there is no source for "The current EQC contract runs until June 2011".

I included three sources including two interviews with the EQC chairman after the quake that describe the current excess as $1.5 billion, so it seems clear to me from current sources that the reinsurance arrangement that applies to this earthquake is for a $1.5 billion excess. What do you think? Dcxf (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Faultline

In paragraph 2 of the Geology section, the information that "It occurred on a previously unknown faultline running 17 km east-west from Taylor's Mistake to Halswell, at depths of 3–12 km." is now incorrect. It has been revised since GNS put out their original media release on 25 Feb.

The Institute of Professional Engineers has put out a fact sheet stating that "GNS Science believe that the earthquake arose from the rupture of an 8 x 8 km fault running east-northeast at a depth of 1-2 km depth beneath the southern edge of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and dipping southwards at an angle of about 65 degrees from the horizontal beneath the Port Hills."

I have tried to edit the article to replace the old information with the new, but don't know how to insert the reference so my edit was reversed. Here is the reference if someone else can perhaps put it in? http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/forms/pdfs/ChChFactSheets-Overview.pdf (downloaded from their page http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/)

Thanks222.154.153.170 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nasa images

Nasa has an image overlaying shaking intensities onto satellite picture of ChCh. I believe NASA images have suitable copyright for our use. Gwinva (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. I've added it to the article. --Avenue (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that; I'm having a few computer problems at the moment, and uploading images is a step too far. (I noticed you added the colour key as well - thanks for fiddling round with it.) Gwinva (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

National state of emergency

It is not a national state of emergency. it is a state of national emergency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.74.187 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

corrected. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Grand Chancellor & Timeball

We now have photos for the most prominent sites of damage except the Grand Chancellor & Timeball Station. There's a Pyne-Gould photo, CTV photo, Cathedral photo. Is one of the Grand Chancellor available? Or Lyttelton Timeball Station? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A photo of the Grand Chancellor hotel would be useful on the stub article for that building, too. Grutness...wha? 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't find one around, but if someone does, it would be a great addition. G₩PSP090 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I've set up categories on Commons for the Grand Chancellor and the Lyttelton Timeball Station. I'll have a hunt on Flickr and see whether I can find good material. I've found that asking uploaders to change licensing to be compatible with Commons has an 80% to 90% success rate. One of the Grand Chancellor photos might already be suitable. Schwede66 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I've managed to get my hands onto a good photo (in my opinion, at least) of the Grand Chancellor. Schwede66 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Found a good before photo for the CTV building. Schwede66 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Aerial images

Aerial images of Chch post quake are now available: see links/details on Stuff, for use under creative commons attribution 3.0; on WP tag with Template:Cc-by-3.0. Gwinva (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rocky the boulder

Do you think this is worth a mention? A boulder crashed into someone's house, nicknamed Rocky, and was auctioned online to NZSki for a large amount with the proceeds going towards the relief aid. Simply south...... 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This was one of many human interest stories reported on after the quake. The New Zealand media devoted many hours of coverage each day for several weeks, and they needed stories like this to fill out their content. I don't think it has lasting value, and should not be included in this article. While we don't have a limit to the amount of content, we do need to keep the length of articles reasonable. Some sections of this article could be spun out (eg the Response and Recovery sections could become new articles) to keep the size down, but I think individual experiences of, and responses to, the quake are outside our scope.-gadfium 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category?

I'm noticing several new articles appearing for buildings destroyed in or as a result of the earthquake (see here)... perhaps a new categiory specifically for the earthquake is needed, Category:2011 Christchurch earthquake, (or possibly Buildings munted destroyed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake)? Grutness...wha? 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As the author of many of those articles, let me say that I would find that useful. Commons has the following category tree, annotated by some comments:
  • 2011 Canterbury earthquake (misnamed in my opinion; should be Christchurch earthquake)
  • 2011 Canterbury earthquake damage (not a very useful sub-category, as it only holds sub-categories itself)
  • Buildings damaged by the 2011 Canterbury earthquake
  • Landslides caused by the 2011 Canterbury earthquake
  • Roads damaged by the 2011 Canterbury earthquake
The bottom categories are mostly too detailed for WP. 'Destroyed' is also too specific, because it would be useful to also categorise those buildings that were damaged. A category on buildings would also be too detailed, as that should really be a sub-category to the earthquake itself, but that would potentially leave the earthquake article as the only one in the parent category. I conclude that simply having Category:2011 Christchurch earthquake would be most appropriate. Schwede66 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, a category would be appropriate. Just one cat would be sufficient for now, and it can include the main article, the various buildings, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and future articles on the legislation passed to deal with the earthquake and any splits from the main article.
I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile also having a cat for the 2010 earthquake, which would include the main article and Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. Are there other articles which would be appropriate for that category?-gadfium 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, a Category:2010 Canterbury earthquake category would make sense, I reckon. There were a few buildings that suffered quite a bit back then (e.g. Manchester Courts), and Kaiapoi got an absolute hammering. Schwede66 04:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I like the initial title Grutness suggested for the subcategory. For New Zealanders, "munted" is a more appropriate word than "destroyed" or "damaged". I wouldn't actually go with such a title though, since it wouldn't be very understandable for non-Kiwis.-gadfium 03:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I was unsure about "destroyed" myself, since it would need to incude buildings extensively damaged, like the two cathedrals, but not destroyed. And yes, "munted"s a little too colloquial! One 2011 Earthquake category coming up... Grutness...wha? 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There are heaps of articles in that category now, and there are so many more that need to be written. Sad. Schwede66 05:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Suburb

No mention of operation suburb? No mention of the complete lack of emergency response in the eastern suburbs? http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/tension-mounts-in-suburbs-4045242/video http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/eqnz-m10.shtml. I'm almost surprised no-ones been calling for an inquiry into the response.60.234.140.207 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a wiki. If you feel that something needs to be written about it, then please write it - you are most welcome to do so. Make sure that you provide references that support what you add. Schwede66 22:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Act of God?

The September and February quakes provoked some commentary that it was due to the hand of God. For example The Philadelphia Trumpet with a huge worldwide circulation says Christchurch was struck by a "so-called natural catastrophe" since the residents "have gone astray". Would this be notable enough for the article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I wouldn't put too much weight on the Trumpet's article (I presume this is the one you mean), but the general idea has been prominent enough to draw some local reaction, at least - e.g. [14], [15] - which might make it worth covering briefly here. We should be careful not to give it undue weight though (see WP:ONEWAY). --Avenue (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what the Trumpet's spin is on the fact that both the protestant (Anglican) and catholic cathedrals were badly damaged in the quake, but the Deans Ave mosque survived largely unscathed... Grutness...wha? 02:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay district and Chabad center destroyed

The gay district of the city was destroyed, (See: "New Zealand:- Gay heart of Christchurch wrecked by earthquake") along with the Chabad-Lubavitch center. (See:"New Zealand Chabad House Destroyed in 6.3 Earthquake") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

and what message do you wish to confer with this post??? noclador (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Petey is responding to the removal of the above paragraph from the article. However, I don't think the paragraph accurately represents its source which says that some of Christchurch's best-known gay businesses were destroyed. This is not the same thing as a gay district; as far as I know Christchurch doesn't have such a thing.-gadfium 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct - Christchurch doesn't have a gay district. Schwede66 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to February 2011 Christchurch earthquake?

Since we now have had an earthquake in June of equal strength and causing more damage, should this article name be changed to include the month it occurred in since the June quake was titled June 2011 Christchurch earthquake to avoid possible confusion? Stormchaser89 (talk) 12:00pm, 21 June 2011 (US Central Time)

I wouldn't do this. A hatnote would suffice. The February event is the main item. Schwede66 19:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It was done anyway, without discussion it seems.  Diego  talk  14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Israeli spy ring

I really can't see any value in adding this at the moment. A rumour surfaced in a small regional paper, and it was promptly denied by the PM [16]. Unless something else comes to light, this seems like a bit of silliness that will soon be forgotten, and including a dedicated section on the rumour and the denial is giving undue weight. Perhaps after some time has passed it will be shown to have some validity, but at the moment there seems to be no substance to it. Let's give it at least a few days to see if anything else emerges. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. sonia♫ 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, I think, true or not, the story has attracted enough media attention, national and international, that it should be mentioned in the article. Mattlore (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mattlore, there has been enough international attention to warrant inclusion Brian | (Talk) 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I also think the story has attracted enough information that some mention should be made here. I added a much shorter version of events to Israel – New Zealand relations before seeing the changes to this article.-gadfium 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I also think that this is worth a mention at this point in time. Schwede66 09:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The political finger-pointing has received coverage. The actual events in christchurch, less so. This isn't www.wikinews.org Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You mean Wikinews posts pure crap? ;P  Diego  talk  14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It should not be included. It might merit a mention in Israel – New Zealand relations, but this article is about the earthquake. Any link to possible spies is purely incidental.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, Israel – New Zealand relations has a the context and space to treat this as something other than a media circus. Indeed it is already mentioned. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christchurch earthquake which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude of quakes

I think the magnitude of the Christchurch quakes should be changed to the internationally recognised United States Geological Survey measurements rather than the New Zealand GNS measurements. This for the following reasons: 1) Apples to Apples. When we hear of a quake elsewhere in the world -- the devastating 7.0 quake in Haiti for instance -- it is almost without exception USGS measurements that are quoted by the media or on wikipedia or in any other source. 2) The Gold Standard. The USGS measurements are considered the gold standard for earthquake measurements by scientists around the world. 3) Distance Helps. The New Zealand measurements must be better because they were taken closer to the earthquake, right? Sounds good. But actually, the closer the measurements are taken to the center of an earthquake, the more prone the measurements are to distortions caused by the event itself. Usually this results in an exaggerated measure taken closer to the event, although occassionally the opposite can be true. That's why the USGS uses a combination of measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgbperry (talk • contribs) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, but he does not cite any sources. If you could provide some information on the distortion of machinery, then it should be added in.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This needs a much more thorough discussion before I can be convinced of this. Can you list the the magnitudes of the various Christchurch earthquakes here and compare them to USGS values? Is there some international acceptance that USGS gets it right, whilst other organisations don't? What is the relevance of this page? Schwede66 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This sounds a bit WP:OR-ish or WP:SYNTH-ish to me, we should report what the reliable sources are stating, not fiddle with it. If a source made a statement about kilometres it wouldn't be appropriate to translate that into miles.Number36 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article fails to mention that search was briefly abandoned on CTV Building

I dunno if its already in the article or not but I remember correctly on the news that they abandoned their search at the CTV Building briefly after they could not find anymore survivors? This prompted parents/families of the victims to pressure New Zealand rescue teams to not abandon their search. There was this lady from the Philippines who even texted her mom saying that she was buried but she eventually died when they recovered her body days/weeks later. Shouldn't things like this be mentioned in the article as well? Bleubeatle (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find newspaper reporting on this, then I believe this detail should be added to the CTV Building article. Schwede66 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Exclusive Brethren

I propose a piece be added under Fundraising and charity events that notes the Exclusive Brethren (an international religious sect) had apparently set up the first tent in the aftermath of the February 22nd, 2011 earthquake. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That is hardly a notable point. It sound more like an attempt at promotion of the Exclusive Brethren themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the EB should be mentioned as they provided a great deal of food to the Emergency Workers in the time we were stationed in Lattimer square. They did so without prophesizing or fuss and were greatly appreciated. I am not EB by the way. :) Brenthollow (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Census cancellation

Quote: The cancellation required an amendment to the Statistics Act 1975, which legally requires a census to be taken in 2011, and a revocation by The Queen.

Query: Why was the Queen's involvement necessary? Why wasn't it enough to amend the Act in Parliament and have the Governor-General give Royal Assent to it, just like every other piece of legislation? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Queen wasn't directly involved. The revocation was done by the Governor-General, and he was not revoking the legislation (as our text might suggest), but his earlier proclamation that the Census would be held on 8 March 2011. I've revised the text to make this clearer. --Avenue (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written article

This article is poorly written, especially in the intro.

The intro sentence contains a lot of technical information, capital letters, parentheses, detail about magnitude, etc, but does not mention that 184 people were killed. This is poor writing technique. The intro should use simple language to convey the gist of the article without being too technical. Technical information should come later.

I am a professional editor and would re-write the article myself, but unfortunately I do not have time at the moment. Perhaps somebody else could have a crack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.187.197 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are a professional editor? Could you let us know for who? -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I looked up your IP address and it traced back to Malaysia. If you were from New Zealand I would have had a good go at you as I dislike, maybe even go so far to hate, all New Zealand media. As for the article (and it doesn't in this present time fit your description, so someone must have re-typed it), you really shouldn't have expected it to be professional before you read it for the first time... certainly not on par with your professional editing. Reality check, this is Wikipedia, articles can be created and edited by anyone and everyone. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is slightly biased and misses many contributions from other organization's in Christchurch. It also misses many of the critical failures to the response that have come out during various enquiries such as the Fire Service Review and Royal Commission Report. The single quote about it being the best run disaster etc. was probably a polite pandering, as the event had major short comings in both preparation and response. Brenthollow (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no definition of red or yellow stickers, which is a pity given the widespread confusion that remains, even three years later.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So fix it. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect comments on length of recovery:

This article claims that some economists have said it will take 50 to 100 years for the NZ economy to completely recover from the earthquakes.

That is totally incorrect.

The relevent reference is to a TV3 article containing the following quote from Cameron Bagrie: "Mr Bagrie says there will be a lot invested in the city over the next 10 to 15 years, but it's going to take 50 to 100 years to fully pay it off in the form of insurance premiums."

This simply indicates that the rebuild is equivalent to 50 or 100 years worth of insurance premiums. The quote has nothing to do with economic recovery.

I suggest deleting the sentence.

202.7.39.58 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking into adding a section on this article

I'm working on editing this page for my advanced writing course (at Northeastern University). I'm thinking of adding a section (under Other Impact) discussing the mental health effects on those affected by the earthquakes (in both September 2010 and February 2011). I think this is important because recent research from scholarly, peer reviewed articles shows a decrease in mental health, including symptoms of depression, PTSD and general anxiety following the earthquakes. I have looked into a few other Wikipedia articles covering disasters in different parts of the world and a section on mental health effects has been rare to find. However, it is an integral part of the recovery of any city that's affected by natural disaster. Any thoughts or suggestions? Narehsahakian (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a worthy section, and those health effects are certainly evident. The Press, the local Christchurch newspaper, has run many a story from a mental health perspective. Make sure that whatever you add is suitably referenced. If you are unsure how to go about referencing, please discuss here, or start writing with some note on the source, and somebody (maybe me) will come along and tidy it up. Schwede66 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Casualties

In the article, three different casualty figures are used. In the intro and infobox, it's 185; in section 3.1 Casualties it's 177 plus 4 [181]; and in the table just underneath it's given as 176.

For consistency, all figures should match the official Police/Government total of 185 cited on the NZ Police website (http://www.police.govt.nz/list-deceased) - and if they don't, for whatever reason, then any discrepancy in any given total should be clearly noted and explained in situ.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2011 Christchurch 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2011 Christchurch 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) 06:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2011 Christchurch earthquake

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2011 Christchurch earthquake's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "deaths":

  • From April 2011 Miyagi earthquake: Staff Writer (8 April 2011). "4 killed, 141 injured after 7.4 quake hits Miyagi Pref, vicinity". Japan Today. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
  • From April 2011 Fukushima earthquake: "Japan earthquake: three killed in powerful aftershock". telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. 12 April 2011. Archived from the original on 26 April 2011. Retrieved 2011-05-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Christchurch_earthquake/Archive_1&oldid=1142749923"