Talk:1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes

message: The date on the list of earthquakes in the United States puts this earthquake on Dec 16, 1811 -- which is it?
:Most sources seem to call all of the events, from December 16, 1811 (first major shock) to February 7, 1812 (last major shock), and including January 23 (another major shock), the New Madrid Earthquake. This article only calls the February 7th event the New Madrid Earthquake, which does not seem consistent with other sources. --Kevin Myers 14:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any uncertainty about the January 23 date? I'm just now examing a letter written by Jared Mansfield, Surveyor General of the U.S., from Cincinnati on January 24, in which he says there was a large shock that very morning (the 24th) after 8 a.m. Ishboyfay (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How fast would earthquake waves travel? Could result in time discrepancy. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of the quake

message: The link to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/bytopic/new_madrid.html is dead and I could not readily identify an exact replacement. Perhaps http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics.php?topicID=71&topic=New%20Madrid%20Seismic%20Zone could be used. Jim 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: The first argument ended with the statement that the New Madrid was the largest to hit the contigious United States. Wasn't the Cascadia Earthquake the largest to hit contigious U.S. ?
--AirLiner 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like that one was off the coast. At least it looks that way form the picture in the article. Dalf | Talk 21:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cascadia quake probably had an epicenter that was very close to the coast; by any reasonable definition of 'hit' it would have hit the USA (earthquake shaking, not just tsunami), and it was definitely of greater magnitude - what would usually be taken to mean 'larger' with respect to an earthquake. M0ffx (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's meant that it's the largest recorded in the contiguous US. Since no one was in the area to verify the Cascadia Earthquake (or at least no one who left a record), it doesn't really count. I'm certain there were even larger quakes to hit the US than the Cascadia at some point in the history of the continent, but they weren't recorded by anyone. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Quake?

message: The German Wikipedia article is more extensive than this one, so I've translated material from it for this article. Here's the original translation request from Wikipedia:German-English_translation_requests:
;:de:New Madrid Earthquake
*Corresponding English-language article: New Madrid Earthquake
*Status: Completed. Chonak 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding material from German article

message: Why is this mentioned in this article? It has, at the most, very little to do with the 1811-1812 event. I'm removing that in a couple of days unless there's a compelling reason why it should stay. Orpheus42 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Please do. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2008 quake

message: What is the length of the madrid fault in miles? What is the largest fault line in North America in miles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Madrid is not a single fault, but a zone. The area with the greatest seismicity, as shown here], is about 100 miles long. The San Andreas Fault is more or less a single fault with associated faults, and is something like 750 miles long. The Denali Fault in Alaska is about the same length. Hope this helps. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the length of the madrid fault in miles? 

message: I propose deletion of several sections on this page, including most of the sections related to geology, present-day earthquake potential, and disaster mitigation. I believe that's more appropriate for the New Madrid Seismic Zone page, and that this page about the 1811-1812 series should focus on that historical event almost exclusively....and go into deeper detail into historical issues and maybe geomorphology than the abstract of the event on NMSZ page. If we want to show that it's important for modern day disaster planning, a couple of sentences tagged on somewhere without its own section will probably be sufficient--but that should also be from a historical perspective. Geogene (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections in three years, I'll do that. Also I'm concerned about this article following Jay Feldman's book too closely in outline. Geogene (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: The article states that the second quake "followed the first earthquake by thirteen hours", but the time given is only six hours later.
--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been heavily vandalized. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: I thought the shepherding authors of this article would be interested in this: Purdue University, “New theory of why midcontinent faults produce earthquakes”. Greg L (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New theory as to the cause of the quake 

message: Yesterday I watched on History Channel a piece on why the states are shaped the way they are. They stated that because of the quake a land speculator (name escapes me) was able to purchase up large parts of the area for cheap (people did not want to live there any longer), and that when the State of Missouri came up for statehood he was therafter able to use his influence in the halls of Congress to get the area annexed to Missouri, as he felt that the confluence of the Mississippi River and Missouri River at St. Louis, Missouri would give the new State of Missouri more power. I don't have any other source for this, bbut it is part of the bigger picture, and would seem to deserve mention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the [[Missouri]] [[Missouri Bootheel|Bootheel]]

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/us_nm/us_earthquake_study;_ylt=AkY.pkcM1pDbSKQ7ePCNGu2s0NUE
** In 1812 New Madrid earthquake on 2011-05-25 02:02:24, 404 Not Found
** In 1812 New Madrid earthquake on 2011-06-01 22:33:27, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This one has been replaced with a functional link. Dawnseeker2000  23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://education.usgs.gov/california/pp1515/chapter7.html
** In 1812 New Madrid earthquake on 2011-05-25 02:02:19, 404 Not Found
** In 1812 New Madrid earthquake on 2011-06-01 22:33:37, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: I've moved this article to the original title (with the format that includes the year) because it's the standard style for earthquake articles. Including the year is not meant as a true form of disambiguation, but is a standard way to refer to historical events. If the disambiguation-based reasoning (that was given for the move to the current title) were to be applied to the rest of our earthquake articles, there would be a large amount of work to be done, and I don't think that would be a move in the right direction. Small earthquakes occur around the New Madrid area on a regular basis and there is always potential for a repeat article-worthy event. Dawnseeker2000  02:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: From what I understand, a few of the massive quakes in this set are thought to have destabilized and added stress to the fault line that produced the final and possibly biggest rupture (the estimates given here suggest it may have been the biggest).  If this is correct, would those quakes not qualify as foreshocks?  That's pretty much what foreshocks are, shocks that produce various effects to trigger, hasten or strengthen a later, larger quake.73.255.122.17 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In my understanding, foreshocks relate to seismic events on the same structure that ruptures in the main shock. Alternatively there is coulomb stress transfer, where an earthquake alters the stress state around another structure, bringing it closer to rupture. There are many sequences of earthquakes over relatively short periods that are connected in this way, such as the 1783 Calabrian earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreshocks?