Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

name change necessary

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake does not properly describe the event.

There were over 1,000 earthquakes in the Indian Ocean in 2004
The earthquake itself did little damage - it was the tsunami that did most of the damage.

The NOAA calls it the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 26 December, 2004

I propose 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami...there was only one tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004.

But I am open to any suggestions. Kingturtle 03:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there were many other quakes in northern California in 1906, but does that mean we change the name of 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, Hurricane Jeanne killed 3000 people in Haiti - but not directly. It caused high rains (somewhat of a glancing blow) that caused mudslides. Do we attribute these deaths to the mudslides, or the hurricane? The earthquake is the singular causative event. Without it, the tsunami would not have happened. The NOAA may call it "Indian Ocean Tsunami of 26 December, 2004" because they are concerned with the tsunami, not the earthquake; the earthquake is the concern of the USGS, which calls this event "Magnitude 9.0 OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA". Also, I don't know if this has been pointed out anywhere, but the USGS page for incident USSLAV (the quake we're discussing here) links to us as an educational link. --Golbez 07:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the hurricane analogy that a change is unnecessary. I wouldn't cry if the name was changed to "earthquake and tsunami", but I don't think it would help either. Mark ¹ 08:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Another argument - Even if it hadn't triggered a tsunami, it was still the largest quake in 40 years, and the 4th largest in recorded history; that makes it worthy of an article. And to separate the earthquake and tsunami into separate articles would be difficult at best. --Golbez 17:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to change it. It will go down in history as a tsunami not an earthquake --BozMo |talk 19:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Registration-required link

In one of the first few paragraphs of the article is the text:
It also triggered earthquakes elsewhere, as far away as Alaska (Science).

Can we get a link to an article that doesn't require registration? I've tried Googling, but haven't yet found any articles that talk about other earthquakes being triggered by this one. Mr. Billion 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. The article says that 14 small earthquakes occuring 20 to 30 seconds apart were detected near Mount Wrangell of Alaska an hour after the Sumatran quake. The ground shook because of surface waves that researchers believe to have originated from the earlier earthquake. The timing is also consistent.

The article references a paper published in Science that has an abstract available for free inspection at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5725/1144. My browser isn't unicode compliant, so I don't dare edit the main article. Anybody who sees this, please change the link in the article to the one above. -D. Wu 21:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. I can't register to get at the abstract, but I take your word for it. Mark ¹ 01:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Number dead in introductory paragraphs

I just revised significantly downward the number of dead cited in the first and fifth paragraphs of the article.

For the fifth paragraph ("Between 170,000–250,000 people are thought to have died..."): To obtain the 170,000 figure, I took the 174,542 confirmed deaths figure from the table under "Damage and Causalties"; to get the 250,000, I took the ~193,623 estimated deaths and added the ~51,598 missing from the table, then rounded up. For the first paragraph ("...killing well over 150,000): I just took the 170,000 and rounded down.

My question is: Does this look right to you? I only ask because it's such a significant departure from the previous figures in these sentences.

On a related note on the causalties table, it doesn't seem right to me that the number of fatalities should be greater than the number of injuries. Any thoughts? --zenohockey 04:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As someone said before (dunno what happened to it), people who survived probably wet, or hit with some floating debris. I'd wager a lot of them weren't injured. --Golbez 04:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Book about tsunami credits Wikipedia

I was browsing in a local bookstore today when I saw this book: Tsunami: The Most Terrifying Disaster by Geoff Tibballs. I flipped through it and at the very last page, the author credits en.wikipedia.org as one of the book's sources! The book is also available at through Amazon.com ([1]). Well done guys! --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

The picture Image:2004-tsunami.jpg is due up for Picture of the Day on Sunday. Since people editing here probably know more about the subject than most, it would be good if someone could check and correct the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 25, 2005. -- Solipsist 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

disambiguation request: "Awa" and fact check

In the section relating casualties, it is mentioned that a 1703 tsunami claimed 100,000 lives when it struck Awa, Japan. First, a historical tsunami that hit Awa listed at Tsunami#Other_historical_tsunamis for 1700 but there is no mention of a 1703 event; were there two events or is one of the two dates incorrect? Second, Awa has several Japanese geographical meanings and it would be useful if someone could disambiguate this term in this article. Thanks for your help. Courtland 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and put my findings, and further questions, at Talk:Tsunami#Awa. Cheers, Banyan Tree 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Bilham (2005) submitted an Errata on 30th Sept 2005

Bilham (2005) submitted an errata on 30th Sept 2005, reducing the estimated energy released to 1.1×10¹⁸ joules. This corresponds to about 0.25 gigatons of TNT Diamond Dave 19/10/2005 20:26

The Great Referencing Clean-up

I'm girding myself up for a run through this article, converting inline references to footnotes and checking that everything is properly referenced. Before I start, would anyone for any reason rather I didn't? Speak now or forever hold your peace... Mark ¹ 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Warning signs

The article mentions how one girl who had studied Tsunamis recognised the warning signs. I distinctly remember having seen people who survived who mentioned how they had recognised the warning signs and evacuated. Some of these people did not appear to make any effort to warn others. Regardless, anyone willing to track those some references so we can add a bit info on this (people, I expect largely tourists who did recognise the warning signs and evacuated)? Nil Einne 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami and Katrina

Is this sentence really necessary?

"A recent documentary on the Discovery Channel said the scene of the 2004 tsunami was "even worse than Hurricane Katrina", which occured about 8 months after the tsunami."

Not to belittle the Katrina tragedy, but the Tsunami tragedy was orders of magnitude bigger than Katrina by any scale. The sentence (as well as the "observation" by Discovery Channel) seems totally superfluous.

It's ludicrous. I've removed it. Mark ¹ 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange Citation

The first citation is [2], not [1]. Can someone check what is causing this to happen? - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've transferred the links into footnote citations, now I'll need a kind soul to do the reorganisation per WP:CITE...Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

Can I suggest that the footnotes go on a separate page? They make it very long for a browser

--BozMo talk 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid they can't; they need to be on the same page as the footnote call. Mark ¹ 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

then the whole article needs breaking up. It is too long --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up the article

Continuing ideas discussed in the above discussion, I agree that the article is long and and deals with multiple subjects. I propose breaking up this article into 3

Any ideas / comments / suggestions? --Asbl 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'breaking up'. I see no reason not to use the usual Wikipedia summary style: on this page summarise theearthquake, the tsunami, and the response and consequences, then have more more detailed articles on each of these. I think that it's important to have once central place where readers can get an overview of the whole thing (hopefully in a more digestible form than currently). Mark ^{your words} 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

World Aid

I'd really like to see a section listing the amount of money each country donated. Chaldean 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake? Mark ^{your words} 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

amphids

amphids reproduction systom is so fast they are born pregnant.what has this got to do with the tsunami?more than 170 milluion amphids died

world aid

i looked it up and i could only find how much the DEC has spent in each country that was effected Since last Boxing Day, millions of people of the tsunami have been helped by Disasters Emergency Committee member agencies. The total cost of 2005 relief and reconstruction so far is £128m – over a third of the money donated.

I would like to say a big thank you to the British public for their generosity as my entire family died in the tsunami exept for my great grandmother but she died later on that day from shock of what had happened. The DEC Tsunami Earthquake Appeal raised an incredible £372 million in donations from the British public after the tsunami. Another £50m was given directly to DEC member agencies. The global financing of tsunami reconstruction stands at about £8.6bn.

Rebuilding entire communities from scratch is extremely challenging. people are very gratefullfor the worlds achievements in cash for work projects, such as clearing debris, which have been very successful. In Sri Lanka, the DEC has spent £40m. In Indonesia, the DEC has spent £40m. In India, the DEC has spent £31m. In Thailand, Somalia, the Maldives and Myanmar the DEC has spent £17m

questions about the tsunami

if you have any questions that were not answered in either reading the text or joining in with a discussion than make a heading and ask away i wil repond within 24 hours under the same heading.and will leave a website that might be use full and some names of boks that might be usefull to

or you can contct me on msn it is tsunamiboxingday@hotmail.com

i will be pleased to answer any questions

Aftershocks

I was here yesterday and wrote about the 8.7 march 28 2005 earthquake. I wrote that some seismologists believe that this was not an aftershock, but a new quake of its own. This have been changed back, which I find weird. When you see the sequenses of aftershocks, the aftershocks of the 2004 eartquake is north of the 2005 episenter, while aftershocks of the 2005 earthquake is longer to the south. This strongly indicates that this earthquake (2005) ruptured anorther area of the fault directly to the south.

So the one who changed this, I would like to know why.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3r6rmljuuakk9?method=4&dsname=Wikipedia+Images&dekey=USGS+Sunda+Trench.JPG&gwp=8&sbid=lc07a

As you see I am not a computer expert.

But since aftershocks usually only occur in the area in which the fault ruptured, this link strongly indicates that the 2005 earthquake was a new large one, as you can see by the aftershock map

Jordskjelv

Also, what I wrote was another explanation offered, not definite statement. So in light of that, I actually find it quite rude to delete my contribution. And of course I can rewrite it, but I hope we can discuss this and see if we can agree on this subject, so the readers gets the most accurate picture.

Removal of Top Picture

Why is the top picture being deleted repeatedly? There is no edit summary for the removal and it appears as though the picture isn't copyrighted. Is there something I am missing? In the meantime, I'm re-adding the picture. joturner 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Other effects

Is it really appropriate to have a mention of a theory that India caused the tsunami with a nuke? I see thtis as completely off topic, and has nothing to do in an article like this. I would like some response, and actually feel like removing it, which I just did Jordskjelv 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I just cleaned up the article, primarily cleaning up the references and organizing them using the Wikipedia:Footnotes format. Please use this format when adding references and material to the article. I also removed a lot of the linkspam as well. Dr. Cash 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Other Effects

The first paragraph in 'Other Effects' reads: "Many health professionals and aid workers have reported widespread psychological trauma associated with the tsunami. Traditional beliefs in many of the affected regions state that a relative of the family must bury the body of the dead. Some psychologists interpret this as evidence of psychological trauma." I was just wondering what that meant. I'm wondering why 'traditional beliefs' would be interpreted as evidence of psychological trauma? Wilson Harron 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

what's this 'i like chicken and ur mom' line?

at the end of the 'Damage and Casualties' section

It was reverted – Gurch 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)