Talk:2024 New Jersey earthquake

Requested move 5 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2024 Lebanon, New Jersey earthquake → 2024 New Jersey earthquake – There's no need for the specificity of "Lebanon, New Jersey" unless there is another earthquake in NJ this year, which seems unlikely. The USGS also says that the epicenter was 7 km N of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey so, in addition to being unnecessarily specific, Lebanon isn't accurate. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- it should be moved. An editor (incorrectly, in my opinion) declined the creation of Draft:2024 New Jersey earthquake, and now someone else has recreated the article with a worse title. --Albany NY (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that, started adding information, now found out that somebody created an entirely different article for it. Yay parallel histories. Q T C 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The constant moves should be resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support –  the earthquake affected large parts of New Jersey, which is reflected in the way it is being covered. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support, lets get this moved as soon as possible. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, should've been a technical request IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the location is not quite right. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, much better name as it wasn't even localised. TwinBoo (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, is there going to be a move protection if one of you are admins? Amogus Rundfunk (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless people keep moving it Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for that info. Amogus Rundfunk (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be, no. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it affected many more places than just Lebanon. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, putting lebanon first and foremost can be misleading for those who are too lazy to read, and secondly it should be the new jersey earthquake because at its most powerful it was in new jersey rather than those tremors in maine, etc 108.50.198.126 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick support: No need in waiting 7 days when the consensus is already unanimous. --Zimbabweed (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When are we gonna move that article? Amogus Rundfunk (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There have been no other earthquakes in New Jersey during 2024, I think its reasonable to say that we should drop the Lebanon. Poxy4 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the title can be changed if there manages to be another notable earthquake centered in NJ this year, and for the most part it would likely be considered an aftershock of this one! Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 16:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Live updates from The New York Times

The New York Times ' updates are useful. Gift article link. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also something to add to Impact

Newark airport's tower was evacuated. It was on their ATIS, I have a screenshot of it somewhere but ideally we can find a RS for this. ItzSwirlz (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the live updates page above. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second earthquake

Another earthquake which was a follow-up of the first one this morning, it is of 4.0 magnitude and occurred at 6:00 EST in Gladstone, New Jersey it is also 9.4 km in depth. I think we need to do an add-up. Here is the information confirming this by the way: [1]. Subaru2000 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article at all?

There's no way this is gonna pass the ten-year test. Earthquakes this magnitude happen hundreds of times per year, and this one isn't any more special, especially since there was no major damage reported, and no casualties reported. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your argument would be sensible if the earthquake took place somewhere on the west coast, like in California, or other countries and states like Hawaii and Japan, this earthquake was very strong and very rare to occur on the east coast. Also, for states like New Jersey and New York, it had been the strongest earthquake to happen in many, many years. Cavdan2024 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, even on the east coast it doesn't warrant an article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here. There was very little damage (except in NJ, where the quake originated). I highly doubt this has long-term notability on its own; it could be merged into Seismicity in the New York City area. That the quake is very rare in this part of the world doesn't mean it should have an article, especially given that there were no deaths or injuries. Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for this article, it just seems more sensationalized by the media rather than carrying notable attributes. It is generally uncommon for earthquakes to reach magnitudes close to 5, so a very rare experience for those living on the east coast, sure. That still doesn't warrant a standalone article. And I'm assessing this article regardless of location. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The East Coast, especially across New England does not have this type of earthquake in hundreds of years. Especially in the modern era where the population and media has grown in this area. It also was literally talked about by the Mayor of New York and even the President of the United States along with other representatives. The quake also occurred in lots of the primary cities of the U.S. (New York, Newark, Washington D.C, Boston and Baltimore).
Overall I support to keep this article,
Subaru2000 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event being acknowledged by POTUS and other high-ranking officials isn't a strong argument to keep this article. Rarity and felt area are not notable attributes for earthquakes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't even think people will remember it in one week, let alone ten years. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any phenomenon which affects millions of people and disrupts transportation is notable. kencf0618 (talk)
It's not notable for a standalone article on an encyclopedia. This is passable for a news article, not on Wiki Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna appear like I'm bludgeoning, but not only is this recentism, but this is also Americentrism. Such a earthquake in, say, the United Kingdom wouldn't have an article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is, for example, 2007 Kent earthquake. Tduk (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, the Kent earthquake actually did do damage. This one hasn't. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earthquake did do damage in NJ though. There was a water main that broke in Randolph, a gas leak was detected which caused the Morristown Administrative Building to be closed down, 3 sets of homes in Newark were damaged, and it also caused part of a historic mill in Readington to collapse. There are still other forms of damage that are out there. There was much more damaged caused by this earthquake to say... the 1984 Llyn Quake which took place in the UK. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why that is not a particularly compelling argument. The 1984 Llŷn Peninsula event is borderline notable - it did cause several injuries and the area of minor damage was large but if it went to AfD I wouldn't argue for its retention. Mikenorton (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree that yes, the argument wasn't very compelling. But it did cause some damage and I don't think that someone should say it hasn't LeSwiss1886 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikenorton I guess a better example of an earthquake would be the 2011 Guerrero earthquake. It did have a much larger magnitude, but there was little damage. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that whilst notability isn't temporary it isn't a fleeting one day story either.
A sub 5 magnitude earthquake isn't notable at all. My country has an earthquake of around this strength nearly once a day, and just today alone there have been several earthquakes of greater strength. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. My residence in Metro Manila which has way more people than here gets interrupted by several earthquakes weaker than this. And yes, they also close out metros for anything less than 5.0 Borgenland (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope in 10 years someone somewhere will mention the t-shirts and I will be vindicated SWinxy (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a move discussion to T-shirts sold after the 2024 New Jersey earthquake if I'm still here in 2034, SWinxy. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol SWinxy (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me biased because I'm from the NE, but are we seriously going to go NEVENT or NOTNEWS on this? This is 1. regionally uncommon 2. highly reported on and 3. absolutely, completely, and utterly not without direct and tangible impacts. This is all quite clear in the article. It might be a weaker on notability regarding stand-alone articles and perhaps notability is being somewhat inflated by Americentrism, but if anything that's proof we should be writing more stand-alone articles, not less, on earthquakes. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS did consider this to be a notable event. The scientific community also considers this to be a notable event. There are other things scientists look at other than global numbers. For example, if 10 inches of rain were to fall in Las Vegas, it would be notable and nobody would argue “millions of places get that much rain every year.” It’s all relative. This is notable because the region it occurred in has very low seismic activity and is in a very densely populated area that is not built to withstand earthquakes. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very accurate and true. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI You don't need an account to comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first earthquake in 100+ or 200+ years, in the area, per the lead. Notable. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct at all, it's the first earthquake of such a strength in New Jersey in 200+ years; however it isn't a large state. The 2011 Virginia Earthquake was stronger and caused at least 200 million USD in damage. Whilst earthquakes in the North East may not be that common there are certainly more long lasting and consequential earthquakes within recent history. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't correct? The lead says: It was the strongest earthquake to affect New Jersey since the 5.3 Mfa 1783 New Jersey earthquake, and the strongest to hit New York City since an estimated 5.0 magnitude earthquake on August 10, 1884. No one is mentioning whether or not New Jersey is a large state. Nor is that relevant. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So not the 'first earthquake ... in the area'.
>Nor is that relevant
Geographical size isn't relevant to earthquake frequency? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I directly and explicitly cited the "100+ and 200+ year references" in the lead of the article. So, I made no claims -- as you suggest -- that these were the first earthquakes ever in the area. The fact that New Jersey is a big or small state is irrelevant to the fact that this was the first earthquake there in 200+ years. Bonus advice: I picked up some reading comprehension skills when I was in school. Think they taught it in like 6th, 7th, 8th grades or so. Look into it. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still wasn't the 'first earthquake there in 200+ years', even if it were I fail to see why that matters - New Jersey is not a large area so naturally it will have less earthquakes than other states. The earthquake caused almost no damage and will not be remembered in 10 years time - mayhap as a comparison for the next sub magnitude 5 earthquake, but only that. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
32.209.69.24, it seems you're the one who needs to read more carefully. The article says the strongest earthquake in over a century, not the first, according to the text that you literally just cited. A 5-second search proves your statement wrong, as well. Epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to read just fine. Thanks. How about yourself? My exact quote above was: It's the first earthquake in 100+ or 200+ years, in the area, per the lead. Notable. Do you see the part that says "per the lead"? Let me repeat that. Do you see the part that says "per the lead"? I'll make it easy for you. I will underline that. I will enlarge it. Does that help at all? Saying "per the lead" is short-hand and abbreviated. It is essentially saying "all the stuff in the lead ... blah blah blah" ... (here's the key: without having to repeat and/or re-type all of the blah blah blah details in the lead). Do you get it? It's fun! It's like short hand, so one does not have to redundantly repeat the same info over and over! Isn't that fun? Sort of like saying "ditto". A bit more formal to say "as per what is indicated in the lead". Or, shorter still, "per the lead". So, I don't have to repeat the years; don't have to repeat the locations; don't have to repeat the qualifiers (e.g., greater than 5.0 earthquake measurement; etc. etc. etc. See how easy that is? Thanks! On a totally unrelated side note, I thank the Lord that my parents scrimped and saved to send me to private school ... and that I never ever had to spend a blessed minute in public school. Thank you, Lord. (Totally unrelated, mind you.) Thanks! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way ... one can say "the first earthquake in 200 years to exceed 5.0" ... or ... one can say "the strongest earthquake in 200 years" ... it means the same exact thing. And, again, rather than spelling out and repeating all of the "weeds" of these details ... I simply all-encompassed it with "per what the lead says" ... or, "per the lead". It's very disheartening when one has to explain, line by line, word by word, syllable by syllable, what is easily communicated. As I just had to do here. Then, again, I never attended public school ... so I have to assume that the fault is all mine. LOL. Yeah, right. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a magnitude 4.8. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
relevant, how? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can figure it out with your private school education? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're really cute and coy! Thanks! Not to mention, totally oblivious that you are merely proving my point. I used "5.0" (it's a round number) as a generic example. Because I did not want to -- or need to -- go back into the article and check for the "weeds" / details. Your nit-pick about 4.8 versus 5.0 merely proves my point. Rather, my points, plural. Including the compliment towards public school education and those so ... ummmmmm ... "educated". 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they not teach how to notate give or take in private school? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful, your comment on public schools (where I also go to, totally no bias there) could, broadly construed, be considered a Wikipedia:Personal attack. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and as a product of both systems, I'm filing an ANI now. No user should feel belittled by some anonymous IP trying to bludgeon and intimidate their way in an argument by showing off how they went to a different school than others and making a joke of educational institutions' (both public and private) basic and foremost duty to formulate decent behavior, which is absent in account's latest statements. Borgenland (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, LOL. Geez, what was I thinking? The US public education system is internationally known for its excellence, its high standards, its results. My bad! Guess I missed that memo? LOL. ("I am gonna file an ANI" ... why not just say, "I'm gonna go tell Mommy and Daddy" ... ? LOL. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The energy difference between a 5.0 and 4.8 is vast. On another note, absolute assassination by Traumnovelle and kudos for keeping your calm Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's logarithmic, it's actually 1.995 times for a 0.2 increase, and I do not see the need to prolong this silly thing on both sides any longer. Let's just assume that IP made a think-o in their first message and assume nothing else happened.
At risk of repetition, I still believe that being the first felt earthquake in like a decade and being the third-strongest ever in the New York region, the size of an average European country, gives enough significance. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, my head isn't working. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DW, logarithms aren't that easy to grasp in passing. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. This is a very rare event in the region, received significant coverage from reliable primary and secondary sources, and caused disruptions to transit service including a short-but-rare shutdown of ATC at Newark. I don't think it deserves a mention in the main page's In the news template, for instance, but it's certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. SlyAceZeta (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT is the appropriate guideline, expanding on WP:GNG. The key thing is enduring notability, not just at the time but in several weeks, months or years time. This earthquake is unlikely to meet this criterion. Mikenorton (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to remain in tristate hearts, and it affects a major geographical scope, satisfying NEVENT. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not satisfy NEVENT, because it is too soon to know if academic studies will be done on the event. As it stands, I think it’s on the border of being notable. I think we should wait for any AFD to see if the event is remembered in a few months time. I will note that while not causing any direct damages, there will be economic losses due to the fact that the earthquake shut down several transportation industries, even if only briefly. Also, the ten year test is only an essay, not a policy or guideline. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It affects a major geographical scope, so it does satisfy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You repeated this twice but I want to see the evidence; it's felt over a wide area in a region of the United States where M4+ earthquakes aren't as frequent as on the west coast, so what? What is the depth of the effect? Disrupting transportation routes and inspections are all common actions taken after an earthquake, it's not special. I don't see the reason why an article is necessary to cover this earthquake when it can be merged into an existing article that is covering the broader topic. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
40 million people of the right coast megalopolis felt a natural exceedingly phenomenon rare for their region. As an outlier event it has a bearing on seismology, and the coverage reflects this. Some housing was structurally damaged and condemned. It didn't have the impact of the 2023 Canadian wildfires, but it most certainly was on par with the 2007 Kent earthquake, 1580 Dover Straits earthquake, etc. and meets WP:Notability (earthquakes) coverage and scientific guidelines (if not lasting impact). kencf0618 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1580 earthquake caused many deaths, so is not remotely comparable. The 2007 event caused significantly more damage than the New Jersey one and is itself only borderline notable. The notability essay, as I read it, would exclude the recent event. Mikenorton (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is the opposite—that this earthquake is not notable. For example the WP:BIGFROG section says: Comparison of insignificant events – such as "The biggest earthquake in eastern Podunk County since the last barely noticeable earthquake" – does not confer notability. The specific guidance section says: Earthquakes with M < 5 and no reported deaths or damage are very unlikely to be notable. For most people in the tristate area, this felt more like a subway train rumbling by than a major quake. Not to mention that most of the sources here are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources.
Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misread that part. Emphasis on since the last barely noticeable earthquake. What it actually means is arbitrary comparisons don't give notability, and a comparison to a very noticeable earthquake is not arbitrary. The relevant section here is SMALLFROG in a quiet pond. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my reading was inaccurate. This was a barely noticeable quake, which only got attention because it hit a wider area in a place where quakes aren't too common. All of the other quakes of equivalent strength are summarized, correctly, in the Seismicity of the New York City area article. The SMALLFROG section you cited says this: And shaking that does not have a lasting impact is not notable. The only lasting impact from this quake was that a few houses had to be evacuated, which in any other situation is not a Wikipedia-notable news story. The in-depth coverage mentioned in this article has more to do with the seismicity of the NYC area article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that makes the section a bit self-contradictory... But it seems to me that the other noticeable earthquake mentioned in that article was only summarized because there wasn't much information to cover. This one does, and the relative aseismicity of the area also seems to just give more notability, plus there's also discourse on the long time it took for the warning to be sent out. It was also way more than "barely noticeable". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were damaged enough to be condemned, the top of a mill collapsed, some utilities pipes broke and a car was damaged by a sinkhole, that's not zero damage even if calling something like photo glasses falling off walls damage would be too legalistic for many. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, no lasting impact as far as I can tell; editors are just blowing this out of proportion. However, I'm glad with the renewed interest in earthquakes and Wikipedians are contributing more towards this project. But a whole dedicated article to an earthquake with little impact misses the mark. This story would vanish within a week. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event needs to have coverage last for a week to be notable. See 2024 Mmamatlakala bus crash. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron, that is not a legit comparison; you are comparing a road accident that killed dozens with an almost unremarkable seismic event that's only sparked memes, government precautionary actions and general public interest. Officials have called that a "national tragedy"; significant for South Africa at the very least. That bus crash is still receiving coverage within the last 7 days. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that events do not need to sustain coverage for a week. That event is clearly notable, and I have not seen any coverage since the 3rd. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't and shouldn't apply to this earthquake because nothing significant has come out of it Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like my next reply would jump us into a circle as I still consider the first felt in a long time to be significant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's felt over a wide area in a region of the United States where M4+ earthquakes aren't as frequent as on the west coast

voila. The fact that earthquakes in the region are rare just adds to the affliction. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is never enough for an article of its own. So what if it rattled the nerves of millions and T-shirts were made? That's just scratching the surface Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of thematic coverage about the lack of seismic activity such as the very first cited source in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS considers it a notable event. The USGS is run by a group of scientists under the federal government of the United States, they tweeted on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after the quake: “Notable quake, preliminary info: M4.8 - 7 km N of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey”. If the usgs considers this a notable earthquake, then I think the article should be kept. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very one-sided and shallow argument. The USGS X account is a tweet bot and they do it for a lot of earthquakes, many of these individual events do not have their own article because they fail multiple criteria Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS did the officially name the earthquake the 2024 Whitehouse Station earthquake. I don’t think they would name an earthquake unless it was significant. It’s significant because it hit in an area with low seismic activity and it hit near major population centers. And the USGS in cooperation with several universities across the country has deployed a research team to the area to examine aftershock activity in the area and to see if they can find an active fault line in the area. All fault lines visible at the surface are extinct ancient fault lines. If a 4.8 hit in California or the Caribbean or some place else, it wouldn’t be important because it’s expected. It’s not expected in New Jersey. And it’s the strongest to hit the area in centuries. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the primary source assigning this event a name as the criteria for Wikipedia articles about earthquakes since a lot of significant earthquakes (with corr. articles) also don't have proper names and just given epicenter proxy to a population center. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source assigning this event a name is the USGS, a major United States government science organization. If they give an earthquake a name, that pretty much ends all discussions. The primary source wasn’t a newspaper, but the USGS. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"pretty much ends all discussions" you're not assessing this article fairly against Wikipedia's various guidelines. That says a lot about how you are approaching this discussion so I won't waste my time with you Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree if you must, but please avoid inflammatory, abusive and disrespectful language. My replies to you were respectful. Yours were not. The phrase “waste my time with you” is not only disrespectful, but it’s abusive and inflammatory. If you don’t want to “waste your time with me” simply don’t respond. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You initiated the end of all discussions during your conversation with me. Quite disrespectful to shut it down rather than be evaluative when countering my stance don't you think so. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don’t think so. I just provided evidence that made it clear the article should be kept. And even then, I did not use disrespectful, abusive or inflammatory language. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain "pretty much ends all discussions" that seemed directed towards me. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need me to explain these five words, I will first need you to explain why you feel it was directed towards you and why you feel these five words were disrespectful, inflammatory and abusive. If you provide ample evidence that it was directed towards you and also convincing evidence that you found these words to be abusive, disrespectful and inflammatory then I will provide an explanation. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reply closes the door for any opportunity to resolve our conflict. I'm commenting for the final time. Have yourself a nice day Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not bow to authority. We have different standards. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The will of the people? MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability, which I think this passes, but not because of USGS at all. You may want to look at some of the links I've sent to your talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. And sounds good. I will take a look at the links. Thank you. MakingThisAccountForJustOneComment (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source on foreshock

The article states that an earthquake on March 14 in the same area was not a foreshock, using this Earthquakelist.org article as a source. That same article falsely claims that the USGS reported a low tsunami risk (the USGS reported no tsunami risk) and also falsely claims that there were no aftershocks (there were multiple, including the 3.8 eight hours later). I think, before we use a bad source as a definitive statement that it was not a foreshock, we wait for the USGS's full report first. We can just leave the sentence as "The Whitehouse Station, New Jersey area had previously experienced an earthquake on March 14, 2024." until we know for sure one way or another. SlyAceZeta (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP text is better than it was, because I fixed a Verification Failed tag, as the WP text was categorically stating that the March 14 earthquake was a foreshock based on WP:OR and no WP:RS. The article in question is automatically composed from technical data provided by various earthquake monitoring systems, so the article has imperfections. Contrary to your comments about falseness, the article does list aftershocks (they are labeled incorrectly), and there is a full discussion of the risk factors of a tsunami, not a categorical statement for this particular earthquake "the USGS reported a low tsunami risk". An earthquake near the ocean has some risk of causing a tsunami, so an automatically generated article would mention some risk, but a human scientist reviewing the earthquake data may delete information about a tsunami. Obankston (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I posted the initial message above, the aftershock section said there were no aftershocks. But my point stands; since the article has imperfections, does it not stand to reason that the article is not a valid source for determining whether a foreshock even occurred at all? SlyAceZeta (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed the sentence back as you suggested. Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Courtesy pings to @Frumacat and @DarkSide830, who have been engaging in reversions of each other's content on this article.

The content in dispute is which New Jersey municipality should be referenced in the lede with respect to the location of the epicenter of the earthquake. DarkSide830 advocates for using Whitehouse Station because this is how the USGS has designated the earthquake; Frumacat supports naming Tewksbury Township because the precise coordinates of the epicenter fall within the borders of this township.

DarkSide830 has argued that Frumacat's use of Tewksbury Township relies on original research; indeed, Frumacat's edit summary here references "a simple Google search of the coordinates." Frumacat has argued that USGS's nomenclature involving Whitehouse Station is imprecise, and notes that other news sources have apparently referenced Tewksbury Township, but as of yet has failed to produce those news sources.

Please discuss the dispute here instead of continuing to edit the article back and forth. Best regards to both editors SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaintPaulOfTarsus and thank you for the summary.
Much of the regional Jersey new is more precise with naming the location. Here are a few examples:
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2024/04/05/nj-earthquake-reaction-tewksbury-bedminster-clinton-hunterdon-county/73218214007/
https://www.nj.com/hunterdon/2024/04/it-sounded-like-a-bomb-heres-what-it-was-like-at-the-epicenter-of-nj-earthquake.html
The latter refers to its source of info as the Hunterdon County Office of Emergency Management. Link to that is here: https://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/AlertCenter.aspx?AID=Hunterdon-County-Earthquake-Update-32
Having grown up and spent most of my life in the community near and around the epicenter, I can tell you this is a low populated area. There are many unincorporated communities and census designated places scattered through the portion of the county. Bigger, national media (NYT, etc.) and additionally the USGS, on their website, have cited it as 'near Whitehouse Station'. To me, this is highly arbitrary. I can only assume it is because Whitehouse Station may be the highest populated village in the area, but it is by no means the location of it. In fact, there are several villages and CDPs with their own wikipedia articles that lay claim to being closer geographically to the epicenter than Whitehouse Station (Oldwick, Pottersville, Readington Township, to name a few). If we want to go by what the USGS says, so be it, but I feel their reason to name it as that is arbitrary since the epicenter occurred within the municipality of Tewksbury Township. I also did not mean any disrespect in my revisions and thank everyone for their time. Frumacat (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I had been of the mindset of bringing this to the talk page and was going to step out of just straight reverting either way here. To clarify Frumacat, I'm hardly disputing your perspective here, I've tread through USGS's maps enough to know you're correct here. My point is the information you have provided isn't sourced to the USGS source connected to that section so that would seem to run afoul of WP:OR. I suspect the spacial data you have provided is sourceable, but you need to find that source. The USGS article states that the earthquake was "near Whitehouse Station", which is also factually correct and sourced. I'm in favor of mentioning all of this information, but I would like Whitehouse Station mentioned in the article at least somewhere seeing as that's how the USGS - the authority over the subject matter in the article - has referred to the earthquake per the link to their page on the earthquake. I know you've commented on this but I fervently disagree that that information is not relevant. If anyone would like to chime in on the OR concerns I would love some feedback. I know routine measurements are not always OR, but I'm not sure if distances between geographical locations are covered here. That would help out some. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification, DarkSide830. Would you happen to know what may constitute as evidence of spacial data? I'm not sure if any of the links in my last reply would suffice for that. Frumacat (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those articles have the distances mentioned in them. A lot of them mention nearby towns which I think is worth mentioning, just not the actual distances you provided. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with OR enough, but ORMEDIA specifies that "source information" from maps are not original research. So I guess the appropriate way is to either cite the Hunterdon Office or use {{cite map}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Is running a calc of distances between geographic coordinates OR? Feels like it could be a gray area so I'm not sure. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the principles of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources and its usage at Pelham Bay Park, probably not, as long as it's just something as simple as comparing distances. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In Popular Context" Section

What happened to the "In Popular Context" section, as well as what was said in it? Why was it removed? It highlighted how the earthquake was being discussed and used on social media. It would have also been a better place to put the part where t-shirts about the earthquake were being sold in NYC. instead of putting this information in the "Aftermath" section. In my opinion, the discussion about the t-shirts does not fit and is not notable enough to be put in the "Aftermath" section, where information about the earthquake's effects on the areas is affected were told. Cavdan2024 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for WP:DUE issues, and probably a little bit of WP:FRINGE on the side. In normal people language, the fact that it spent its entire length discussing conspiracy theories meant the article spent a disproportionate amount of time on said conspiracy theories, relative to how important they were in the grand scheme of things. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. Thank you for explaining. Cavdan2024 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no problem! --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_New_Jersey_earthquake&oldid=1220140614"