Talk:1994 Northridge earthquake

message: I see the Loma Prieta earthquake article makes the claim that Loma Prieta was the costliest US natural disaster. That would seem to be in conflict with the statement in this article that Northridge was the most costly US quake or some such (I'm paraphrasing both here, these are not exact quotes). These appear to me to be mutually exclusive statements that need to be reconciled for article accuracy. Thoughts? FeloniousMonk 22:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be addresed.  I assume Wikipedia:Cite your sources would be the principle to apply.  Where can we find that makes this claim?  If we can't, then remove it to the talk page.  Anyone want to step up and do the google and literature(sp) search? JesseW 07:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I also agree that there should be some sources cited...I am from California and experienced the Loma Prieta quake first-hand. As far as the damage done, I would say that Loma Prieta appeared to cause more; this, of course, is anecdotal evidence. I'll look for some other sources. I am, however, going to add the Coalinga Earthquake to the list of three destructive earthquakes. For some reason, this got missed. JustinStroud 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting...I found the cited source on the bottom, the 'Insurance Information Institute'. I'm curious, though...does this figure include all the rebuilding that took place in SF and the Bay Area? I don't think it does...it would be interesting to see a more representative figure. JustinStroud 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you reexamine the LP statement, it states that "The quake caused an estimated $6 billion in property damage, becoming the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history of its time." -Absolutely true and not in conflict. The LP quake preceeded Northridge and was the most expensive disaster at that time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.206.204 (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting Cost Claims: Loma Prieta vs. Northridge

message: There was a three-story apartment building in which the middle floor collapsed during or immediately after the quake.  It dominated the news at the time (I lived in Gardena, CA back then) but doesn't seem to be mentioned here.  http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/18/18_369_slide.shtml  I am unfamiliar with proper wiki formatting, but I thought this is pertinent information that might need to be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.36.223 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're referring to the Northridge Meadows apartments, which structure is discussed under the structural failures section. Bob Kerns (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apartment collapse

message: The first and third paragraphs disagree as to how many deaths (72 vs 57). Both may be reasonable based on citations, but both need citations! Bob Kerns (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote from Wisner et al. 2004.At Risk. 2nd Edition gives a range from 33 to 150+. 33 is the number of deaths from direct or indirect earthquake injuries, 57 is the number of deaths caused directly or indirectly by the earthquake (as defined by the LA County coroner) (although I can't find a direct source for this, it is quoted many times) and 150+ is the number of people whose surviving dependants received death benefits from FEMA (I can't find an independent source for this either). The source given for deaths and injuries in the article actually quotes a figure of 61 dead. Because different numbers come from different methodologies, e.g. from estimating the number of excess heart attacks on the day of the 'quake, I suggest we stick with the widely quoted 57. Mikenorton (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Complicating matters further, the USGS give 60 fatalities  and a search of documents on the FEMA website gives mainly 57, one 60+ and a couple of 72s. On balance 57 is the most supported but it all goes to show that there can never be anything like a definitive death toll in a disaster like this. Mikenorton (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting Claims: Number of Deaths

message: I've uploaded three images of the fallen 10 freeway that I took near my house.  I'm not much of a photo editor, so they still need some work on cropping, enlarging the important elements, and so on.  I hope that some kind soul from the community could help with this.  If you need larger pixel images, let me know.  (The source is normal size photo prints, so I'm not sure how much more resolution can be usefully gained, though.)  If you feel that there are too many pictures, please add more text, or other pictures, rather than removing them (or at least, explain your reasoning here. ;-) ) JesseW 07:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Freeway images

message: Added link to CSSC web-page showing significant California earthquakes (which needs to be updated). While Northridge did cause significantly more damage than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, dollar amounts are always approximate and in any case, should probably be adjusted somehow for inflation. Eliminated mention of damaging earthquakes in 23 years; there were several others in that time period that caused damage and at least two caused casualties (Whittier and Landers)as well and 23 years seems somewhat arbitary.
Removed part about Anaheim City council and revised sentence on thrust acceleration. As written it made no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.227.73 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage estimates

message: I want to know whay caused the earthquake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.146.100 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer: Plate techtonics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.252.6 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what caused the northridge earthquake 

message: I don't understand the association with MLK's birthday. I do not see any valid reason to mention this. If it had happened on Truman's birthday, would Wikipedia make such a fuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educate (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was important to mention, because it was a part of a three-day-weekend, where many people were not going to work or school. The morning was relatively calm, and if it had been just a regular day, I can bet there would have been more people hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.248.34 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the earthquake occured at 4:30am, the number of casualties probably wouldn't have been very different as it's still the middle of the night when most people are sleeping.  But I do agree that the MLK Day is mentioned because it was a legal holiday that is notable.  Harry Truman's birthday is not a holiday and I'm guessing, justified or not, most people don't even know what part of the year Truman was born or care. --Marriedtofilm 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry Truman's birthday is a holiday; it is VE Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.248.34 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There might have been more people out there if had not been a holiday, even at 4:30am.  But the other important thing is that because it was a holiday, it probably helped keep people off the roads after the quake instead of trying to get to work.  It took a while to assess the damage and not everyone who commutes into LA would have felt the strength.  Plus there were some significant aftershocks throughout the day, which caused more damage.  Just my two cents based on being there. (Also near Sepulveda and Olympic, oddly enough). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenSaunders (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MLK's birthday

message: Hi, there! I am doing a report on this whole disaster. I'm from Madison Middle School! Can anybody give me some ideas about the damage the earthquake costed, please? That will be very helpful! Thanks! Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.142.4 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage cost

message: It was caused by the release of stress along faults under the Los Angeles basin. The movement is caused by the ongoing movement between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.227.73 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what caused it? 

message: I've read a few things (even here on Wiki) saying that the epicenter was actually in Reseda and that the media only termed it "Northridge Earthquake" to garner more funds as Northridge homes a more upper class than Reseda. Should we add this bit to the page? Modenadude 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also lived close to the epicenter, am a scientist and worked on the Quake with the The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The epicenter, although close to Reseda is officially listed as Northridge and that information is correct. Also the magnitude is actually a 6.8 officially NOT a 6.7 as stated in the Wiki article several times. I know we that lived in the Reseda area got hit hard by this Quake, but our National studies, and the Scientific bodies that govern them are the sources for all of us to use as referencing our facts. As I'm sure with you, all of us that lived through that disaster are hoping to never repeat the experience again and as I'm sure most would agree, want the information listed in an Encyclopedia for the world to see needs to be as verified and accurate as possible. The The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one of the highest authorities on Earth for verifying this type of information and is the key authority in the United States, where the earthquake occurred. 
--Steven2nash (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  While what you say may be correct, the seismological community holds that the Mw magnituide was 6.7 for this event. Imveracious (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the USGS stating 6.7 here. Bahooka (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Southern California Earthquake Data Center  et. al. If no others agree with the "new" figure it should be reversed. Imveracious (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Publication Citation: 1994 Northridge Earthquake from the NIST is a old publication and since that time facts have changed to what is known now. It was published May 01, 1994....  Imveracious (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Article reverted to as was. Imveracious (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epicenter in Reseda 

message: Personally, I think it would be a very reasonable idea if you described some of your pictures more in the captions - I do not understand two of your captions. If you added more pictures or increased the definition of the existing ones it would be a very good article.
Please do not receive my comments as critisms - in fact I found it a very useful source for study. Thank you a lot for taking the trouble.
Stoatystoatrock (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Dawnseeker2000, How is what I added considered WP:COPYVIO? Imveracious (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was an almost verbatim copy of the text used in the cited source, which would make it a copyright violation. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I've tweaked your paraphrase slightly to distance it further from the original text. Mikenorton (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:COPYVIO,