Jump to content

Talk:2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami

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

discussion

[edit]

There has been 21 confirmed earthquakes including the big 8.0. they all are over 4.7 in magnitude...--Warpath (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the heights of the surges should be given in metres as well.--202.36.179.65 (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I thought. Feet, inches... wot dat? Had to check the calendar, but it's still 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 September 2009

There appears to be some confusion with the date upon which this event occured. Samoa and Tonga share the same time but in different days as they are on either side of the International Date Line (IDL). The earthquake occurred on at 06:48 on Tuesday in Samoa and 06:48 on Wednesday in Tonga. I calculate that the epicentre is about 20km to the east of the dateline. The USGS have clearly decided that this is the case (see citation 3) by stating that the earthquake occured on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 06:48:11 AM at epicenter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.32.70 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.29.111 (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad about that. I heard the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSimuTrans (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wave height

[edit]

"The earthquake generated three separate tsunami waves, the largest of which measured 13.7 feet (4.2 m) from sea level height"
Can anyone shed any light on this? There’s no source given, and the PTWC gave wave heights of 1.57m at Pago Pago, 0.70 m at Apia, according to here. And the article originally said 5.1 ft [1].
Anyone? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has very diligently converted many measurements into imperial to use in this article. I think because all the countries affected except American Samoa use the metric system, it would be the appropriate system of measurements to use across the article. "French High Commissioner Adolphe Colrat warned residents of the Marquesas to seek shelter at an elevation of at least 32.8 feet (10 meters) above sea level." I think demonstrates this point: residents were warned to seek shelter 10m above sea level, not 32.8 feet. It makes the article read poorly for non-Americans: perhaps it could use metres with imperial measurements glossed in the American Samoa section 203.97.98.36 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve got no worries about using metric, with conversions to imperial (though we have to be careful with direct quotes). And 4.2 m (14 ft), using the conversion template, makes more sense than 13.7ft (what is that anyway? 13ft 7 in? 137⁄10 ft?). My issue was that the value itself had no source, and had changed dramatically since it was written the day before. For a statement in the opening paragraphs of the article, it seems dodgy. I just wondered if anyone knows anything about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it seems dodgy, and I've removed it. Feel free to put it back if you can provide a source. -- Avenue (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami Warning

[edit]

The warning was issued earlier than 9:30 pm like the wikipedia article says. The warning in San Diego was issued at 7pm and the Chronicle Article appears to have been older than 9:30 pm last night.

There must be some better source on when the warning was issued, because simply put the article is wrong.--128.54.238.5 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Aid

[edit]

If American Samoa is a U.S. dependent territory, should U.S. aid to American Samoa be considered "international aid"? -- 129.62.89.139 (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are right: it should go under the American Samoa section. There is no suggestion that Obama has yet offered assistance for any of the other, non-American, affected territories, which is what that placement seems to imply. 203.97.98.36 (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos?

[edit]

anyone got recent samoa tsunami photos we can upload? Teine Savaii (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aftershock (6.1MW)

[edit]

A further event has been recorded, measuring 6.3ML this time. [2] It's hardly as powerful as the first, recorded on very long but not on short period graphs in Britain at 01:27 GMT. [3] Mere Mortal (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The existing references for the fore/aftershocks table has listed this event. As such, I've updated the table accordingly. Mere Mortal (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another aftershock measuring 5.9, this time near to Lautoka, Fiji. Is there a point at which the aftershocks are no longer updated on the table? Mere Mortal (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Fuji removed, not an aftershock Mere Mortal (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyards and coffins

[edit]

I'm not going to get into an edit war with an ISP address. There is a contention that a graveyard was washed out to sea with nothing to back it up. No source that I can find even mentions it. The ISP person insists he/she saw it on a TV report with nothing to back it up- no name of program, no name of broadcaster, no date, no nothing AND and says that he/she does not even have to provide that information! Sorry, but the way that I read WP:RS, you must provide that information. Otherwise, I can just say that there are zombies atacking New York because I saw it on TV and I don't have to prove it. Please provide a source for your assertion that there are out to sea. Einbierbitte (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to get into an edit war but I've removed it again. I checked that story too yesterday and had removed it the first time because there was no source and I could't find the story on tvone news - and there wasn't even a full stop and it looked like possible vandalism.Teine Savaii (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are the only vandal here could have been on tv 3 im not sure it was a beach interview the next day so if you cant find anything about the interview or even about the grave yard then your saying it didnt happen your just picking at maybe your to sensitive over the topic you be a big boy hero then if you dont trust my input then all my input on this subject will be removed and if undone will be removed again your saying that every statement has to have a link now thats just stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.29.111 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi user 124.197.29.111. Thanks for coming to the discussion page. I hear you. Nothing personal, and sincere apologies if you're offended - have no intention to be so. Hope you're ok. Ia manuia. Teine Savaii (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from Mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, Arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the Arbitration policy. Note that Arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while Mediation is normally for disputes about article content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.29.111 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're aggrieved by the removal of your input, then what you read there may be an avenue for you to approach. However, any factual and cited information about this matter does not really require mentioning, it is actually somewhat trivial when compared with the geological and tragic aspects. I'm sure the mediators would concur. Mere Mortal (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double earthquake

[edit]

According to BBC News on this earthquake, this was a double event. With a earthquake of Mw8.1 as first earthquake, followed by a Mw8.0 earthquake soon after. The BBC News can be read here. Jonfr (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami at Christmas Island

[edit]

I am wondering if anybody knows what happened to Christmas Island after the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It lies so low. Was it flooded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highwoodmom (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A maximum tsunami water height of 17 cm was recorded at Christmas Island, according to this, so no flooding would be expected. Mikenorton (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 03:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami. 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) 13:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami. 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) 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami. 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) 13:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Samoa_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=1196549675"