Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

President of Serbia

The President of Serbia was meeting with the Emperor when the earthquake hit. I think that's important enough to add it to the article.

I fail to see how one would tie in that point to the flow of the article; seems too disconnected. However, the President of Serbia has issued a statement of condolences, which I will amend to the "International Response" section. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done I mentioned the fact that the President has sent his condolences after his official visit to Japan. But no mention of meeting the Emperor at the time of the earthquake. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the introduction should go on like this:

The 2011 Sendai earthquake was a catastrophic undersea earthquake that occurred at 05:46:23 UTC on Friday, March 11, 2011, with an epicentre ff the east coast of Tohoku, Japan at a depth of 32 km (20 miles). It was an 8.9 magnitude earthquake, and was measured 8.4 on the JMA seismic intensity scale. Originally a 7.9, it was upgraded to an 8.8, then again to an 8.9 by the United States Geological Survey. The earthquake is the 7th strongest earthquake in recorded history.

I think you should also include that it is the 7th largest in recorded history globally (List of earthquakes) Please add wikilinks and other citations to the above. The introduction has been taken from the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake article. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude?

Someone deleted everything! Rthmn3021 (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looks like someone is trying to vandalize. Administrator is requested to semi-protect the page. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does the "Deaths and Casualties" section keep changing! Somebody keeps changing it back to "1 confirmed death" but there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthmn3021 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The death toll has reached 19 dead... Any change soon?-will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.164.48 (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the nice map!?! Why is the USGS one back? I think both should be there for extra information.... (- rthmn3021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthmn3021 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the source for the downgrade to magnitude 8.4? The page linked to as a citation still says 8.9. Dylan Thurston (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Watching CNN and News ticker says "Yen has dropped sharply" -Anonymous

8.4 is the last report from the Japan Meterological Service, 7.9, 8.8 and now 8.9 were USGS reports. --joe decker talk to me 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 8.4 seems to be the main one with two more around 7.4. At least one is aftershock but the other one seems to be caused by the main one.--Revth (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The USGS is now reporting it to be 7.1 (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0001xig.php)

Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The 7.1 was an aftershock the main quake is 8.9 [1] 174.3.219.127 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the Japan Meteorological Service uses a different scale from the USGS, hence the 8.4 JMS rating and 8.9 USGS rating. Both are linked in the lead, so I think that's appropriate. rdfox 76 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan Meteorological Agency official named 東北地方太平洋沖地 in japan.--素手@Sudepedia (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The current scale is M 8.9 according to USGS. The event ID of the earthquake is usc0001xgp. That only reason i was created the article with the event ID here. Reason is, if a big earthquake is occured, later possible to so many aftershocks on the location. We are working for Integrated Tsunami Watcher Service since 2004 Indian ocean earthquake. That only reson my most contributions are based earthquake and tsunami. Gnuismail (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

JMA announced that the estimate is now M8.8. This makes it the largest earthquake ever recorded in Japan by JMA. --Revth (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

JMA scale measures intensity, similar to the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI). JMA gave a Shindo number of 7 in the Northern Miyagi Prefecture, which would correlate to approximately 8-9 on the MMI scale. drgribb (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We might want to consider the article on the JMA's ratings. That article says clearly that the top is 7, while we are in this article showing citations of well above that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.146.240 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the different rating systems used. The Shindo number rates intensity instead of magnitude; the 7 rating seen in the nearest areas to the epicenter indicate complete devastation. The 8.8 JMA number is a magnitude number, though I'm not sure which magnitude scale the JMA uses. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This would be similar, then, to the Fujita scale for tornados, in that the Shinda number measures damage, not power. The F-scale measures damage, not windspeed, like the relationship between Shindo and magnitude (which is a scientific quantitative measure of the power of the earthquake).Jtodsen (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

Do we need the "and tsunami", I mean is obvious many earthquakes have tsunamies and we do not list them in their titles. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that "and tsunami" would be necessary if a considerable amount of damage created by this event was also by a tsunami, rather than the earthquake alone. As in, tsunamis are always part of an earthquake, but I'm sure most damage from those events was from the earthquake alone, and thus is known by the earthquake itself. As opposed to, say, the 2004 Indonesia Earthquake/Tsunami, where the damage was caused by both the earthquake and tsunami. --- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Preliminary reports, from live tv so can't cite, are indicating that just as much, if not more, damage was from tsunamis. If that turns out to be false, it can be changed back later. Remember also that tsunamis can occur hours after the initial quake. Ravendrop 07:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Now, I've redirected the Sendai tsunami here, basically, it still a stub which does not deserve its own article (now). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Good redirect. Ravendrop 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not all tsunamis are caused by earthquakes either. The tsunami currently looks more notable than the quake that caused it. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Few earthquakes have notable tsunamis, many earthquakes have no tsunamis at all. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The official name of the earthquake has been released from Japan Meteorological Agency[1], "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake".--180.6.76.104 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Multiple webpages reporting the waves height in Hawaii as high as 6 feet (conservatively) Especially in Kahului Harbor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.166.2 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

113 casualties wrong, that was the NZ quake--read the source

Probably a good-faith edit, but the 113 number comes from this report, with an inset about a quake in New Zealand [2] --joe decker talk to me 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eight people confirmed dead according to your source, at least two from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhehir (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

USA/Canada: Tsunami updates

Just heard on the tv news that there is a tsunami watch for Alaska, Washington & Oregon coasts -- & I assume for the Canadian Pacific coasts too. Reported ETA for the first tsunami waves to reach Seaside, Oregon is 7:24am PST. -- llywrch (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As a note, at this point, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center has no actual advisory, watch, or warning issued yet. Expect them soon, possibly with warning sirens fired, but nothing official yet. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm watching France24's english language broadcast, and it seems that they are assuming the west coast of the US is included because the PTWC includes South & Central America. But the area from Alaska to California is not covered by the PTWC but rather by the WC&ATWC and as Rdfox notes there is not currently any warning, but that is likely to change as more data gets analysed. Gecko G (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Now there is. [3]. Advisory for parts of Alaska, Watch (not warning) for rest of Alaska, and all of BC, WA, OR, & CA. Gecko G (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

a few mins ago i read that the est. death toll was 30 million. where did they get this number? it has since been removed.

Can't edit this myself, so: citation for Hawaii school closures is at http://doe.k12.hi.us/ under School Closures. [2] ScottLeibrand (talk 09:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't say they were closed because of the tsunami, but instead suggests schools were to be closed anyway. Any idea which case is true? Ravendrop 09:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. Looks like it was already a furlough day, but "Multi-track schools were originally scheduled to be open on March 11", and it's unclear whether they were closed due to tsunami evacuations or something else. Just found another closures link, though: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=9683583 ScottLeibrand (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That second link was for January 16. I'm going to remove the school closure mention from the article as its not relevant unless caused by the tsunami, which refs don't prove. Will re-add if refs to prove otherwise can be found. Ravendrop 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and I think if there were tsunami school closures they'd be easier to find, so removal works for me. Not sure if it's appropriate to remove this exchange from the discussion page now, but if so I'm fine with that as well. ScottLeibrand (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Any valid discussion about an article is usually never removed from the talk page. Eventually this will be archived, but it should be kept as a reference for anyone questioning why the info may have been removed. Ravendrop 09:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirming, 11 March 2010 was already scheduled as a date when essentially all public schools would be closed due to furloughs, see http://doe.k12.hi.us/news/furlough/calendars1011/calendars/SY2010-11%2010%20month%20Teacher%20Calendar.PDF BobC32 10:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobC32 (talk • contribs)

new updated bulletins:

Bulletin 5 from WC&ATWC (1:45AM PST): [4] (text) [5] (graphic): OR, most of CA, and the aleutians under a Tsunami Warning, other area's under Tsunami Advisory.

Bulletin 5 for Hawaii from the PTWC (11:30 PM HST): [6] Warning for Hawaii.

Bulletin 5 for the Pacific basin from the PTWC (0930 UTC): [7] Tsunami warnings for JAPAN / RUSSIA / MARCUS IS. / N. MARIANAS / GUAM / WAKE IS. / 

TAIWAN / YAP / PHILIPPINES / MARSHALL IS. / BELAU / MIDWAY IS. /
POHNPEI / CHUUK / KOSRAE / INDONESIA / PAPUA NEW GUINEA /
NAURU / JOHNSTON IS. / SOLOMON IS. / KIRIBATI / HOWLAND-BAKER /
HAWAII / TUVALU / PALMYRA IS. / VANUATU / TOKELAU / JARVIS IS. /
WALLIS-FUTUNA / SAMOA / AMERICAN SAMOA / COOK ISLANDS / NIUE /
FIJI / NEW CALEDONIA / TONGA / MEXICO /
KERMADEC IS / FR. POLYNESIA / PITCAIRN /
GUATEMALA / EL SALVADOR / COSTA RICA / NICARAGUA / ANTARCTICA /
PANAMA / HONDURAS / CHILE / ECUADOR / COLOMBIA / PERU

If someone wants to update from those, here's the ref's for you. Gecko G (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PTWC Tsunami Warning Bulletin 6 just came out. Ref: http://www.weather.gov/ptwc/text.php?id=pacific.2011.03.11.103059 From that, here are the wave activity measurements: 

MEASUREMENTS OR REPORTS OF TSUNAMI WAVE ACTIVITY
 GAUGE LOCATION LAT LON TIME AMPL PER
 DART 21415 50.2N 171.8E 0845Z 0.27M / 0.9FT 52MIN
 WAKE US 19.3N 166.6E 0928Z 0.39M / 1.3FT 14MIN
 NAHA OKINAWA JP 26.2N 127.7E 0901Z 0.25M / 0.8FT 60MIN
 SAIPAN US 15.2N 145.7E 0916Z 0.65M / 2.1FT 30MIN
 TOSASHIMIZU SHIKOKU 32.8N 133.0E 0753Z 0.92M / 3.0FT 68MIN
 OMAEZAKI HONSHU JP 34.6N 138.2E 0818Z 1.42M / 4.6FT 56MIN
 DART 21419 44.5N 155.7E 0716Z 0.40M / 1.3FT 20MIN
 DART 21413 30.5N 152.1E 0659Z 0.76M / 2.5FT 32MIN
 HANASAKI HOKKAIDO J 43.3N 145.6E 0657Z 2.79M / 9.2FT 76MIN
 DART 21401 42.6N 152.6E 0643Z 0.67M / 2.2FT 40MIN
 DART 21418 38.7N 148.7E 0619Z 1.08M / 3.5FT 06MIN

Note that the DART locations are shown at: http://map.ngdc.noaa.gov/website/mgg/dart/viewer.htm BobC32 10:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobC32 (talk • contribs)

thanks BobC32, I was trying to add the same ref. Interestingly though bulletin 6 from the WC&ATWC has different tide guage reading for Wake & Saipan (and the other locations), so I'm not sure what to make of that. (here:[8]) Gecko G (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And with the respective bulletin 7's the readings, albeit updated (ie Wake now 5+ feet) differ again between the version reported by the PTWC and that of the WC&ATWC. Why the difference? Gecko G (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant Midway, not Wake above. Still conflicting in the bulletin 8's. Gecko G (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake Image

The image currently posted needs to be changed to reflect the universal earthquake map for notable quakes on Wikipedia. --Ajcadoo (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Image removed because people messed with it, resulting in a massive and uncomplete image that's slowing things down and breaking the formatting. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah! this one looks better Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

International Response by Russia

Aljazeera mentioned on the live video on youtube, but I don't know how to reference it.--Packinheat2u (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not relavent at this point, as it is an indication of an offer of help, which essentially every nation will give. Also, youtube videos, even from groups like Al Jazeera, are not WP:RS and shouldn't be used as references. Ravendrop 08:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no good way to reference live video. It'll have to wait until the response is put in words, and the words will take a while to solidify, so leaving a heads-up like the way you just did is fine. --193.143.197.15 (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This is from the Associated Press website about Russia's evacuation plan and President Dmitry Medvedev stating "We stand ready to help our neighbors to overcome the consequences of that extremely strong earthquake". AP News : News : Times Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Germany offered its support as well, with Guido Westerwelle stating that “If help is necessary, the Germans will naturally come to the aid of our partner Japan,” he told broadcaster ZDF, adding that leaders there had not yet asked for help. http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110311-33655.html

Either the entire section should get deleted or every country offering aid should be listed, not just the US and UK. Wrong impression. 188.118.130.233 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftershock

I'm on a slower connection, so any time I try to edit it reports a edit conflict because others complete edits before I can get mine done. The Aftershock was 7.1, not 7.7, per the USGS. Someone wanna fix that please, thanks. Gecko G (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the list of aftershocks -- per the USGS ---can be see at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php ... which is showing quite a few; USGS showing the largest one as 7.7 BobC32 10:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobC32 (talk • contribs)

Umm... I don't see any 7.7 listed there... It lists the main 8.9 quake, a 7.1 aftershock, and a 7.2 quake back on the 9th. That is the same thing I was looking at. cheers. Gecko G (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please add

Wikimedia Commons has media related to 2011 Sendai earthquake damage.

{{commonscat|2011 Sendai earthquake damage}} 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)\

Earthquake geophysics image

File:145 40.png

There's a geophysics map available: File:145 40.png

If we had a geophysics section, it would be good to place there. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Australia National No Threat Bulletin

JATWC issued a no threat bulletin at 7:07 PM EDT. Full bulletin here: http://www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/national.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsangk (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami reaching South China Sea

According to the Hong Kong Observatory, which issued a tsunami information bulletin at 15:55 HKT / 16:55 JST [9] [10], the tsunami is expected to reach Hong Kong, and the height is estimated to be less than 0.5 metre. 09:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.138 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was forecast that the tsunami shall reach HK by 2100 HKT, 2200 JST or 1300 UTC. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong has sent condolence to the people of Japan, and the Hong Kong Government has issued a travel alert for Japan at the red level. 12:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.25.138 (talk)

Wikinews

{{edit semi-protected}}

Wikinews has related news:

Please add {{wikinews|8.9 magnitude earthquake hits Japan, causes tsunami}}

184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ravendrop 09:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurihara

I've removed the following section named "Destruction" since the sources don't support its content:

If there are proper sources for it feel free to add it back. Amalthea 10:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have (unreliable) sources claiming that the Kurihara news center is still broadcasting. Doesn't appear to be decimated. Dcoetzee 10:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kurihara is where JMA seismic intensity scale (shindo) 7 was measured(Japanese JMA news release) and "completely destroyed" seems pure speculation based on the shindo 7 description. --Kusunose 10:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

FNC just reported on live TV Kurihara being "totally destroyed" as of 9:34 AM EST. Not putting back in pending confirmation, but that's what I just heard. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sendai earthquake"?

Please see the Japan Meteorological Agency's Flash. Earthquakes are observed throughout Japan. I live 400 miles away from the epicenter. The tsunami reached a height of about 5feet 3hours after the earthquake.--218.222.108.203 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You want a different name? It's the largest measured quake in Japan, as well as a substantial tsunami, so either would be appropriate for Japan. If the tsunami causes great damage outside of Japan, then tsunami may be more appropriate... Or do you mean that "Sendai" might be better tagged as something else? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sendai City is one of the cities in Miyagi Prefecture. The Japan Meteorological Agency named an English name of "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake" to this earthquake. --218.222.108.203 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This page must be renamed, because disaster spreads throuout east japan, not only sensai city, and the official name in japan per above.--121.95.124.231 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
We can worry about the name in a day or so when the editing starts to slow down a bit. For now, the important thing is to create redirects to make sure that readers get to this page no matter what title they use. Pichpich (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Engrish naming should be avoided. Perhaps 2011 Miyagi tsunami would be a better name. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to avoid an Engrish name let's allow the Anglo-centric world with little or knowledge of Japan's geo-political boundaries to come up with a random name, "Oh my local English speaking news channel is focusing on this city called 'Sehhn-Die' then Sendai it is." 221.25.70.62 (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would think with all those US military bases in Japan, the US would have a good idea of Japan's geopolitical boundaries. And whatever the case, bad English is still bad English. "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake" could easily be made better in English as "2011 earthquake off the Tohoku Pacific coast" or "2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku" . Much less tortured English. This is the English Wikipedia, not the something-looking-vaguely-like-English Wikipedia. And if you wanted the proper name (in proper grammar), it's written in Japanese, and we don't allow those titles on English Wikipedia. If it were French Wikipedia, would you still insist on the latin-character title that came out of Japan, even though it is Engrish? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Area of perceived earthquakes

Hello, the earthquake was strongly felt as far as Tokyo, 1000km southward (!). Please help to collect sources to specify where the earthquake was perceived, and with which force. Yug 10:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.120.55.63 (talk)

USA tsunami

Please update with ETA for USA coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.199.130 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Estimated US arrival times are here: http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/2011/03/11/lhvpd9/06/webetalhvpd9-06.txt Moondyne (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The link Moondyn gave covers Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, & California. The time's for Hawai'i are currently estimated range of 3:07 HST for parts of Kauai to 3:46 for Hilo (Big Island). Midway at 12:35 HST. American Samoa is estimated at 4:00 local time. And as always those are estimates only and are estimates for the first wave, but the first wave is not neccessarily the most severe. Gecko G (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

fire in north japan nuclear power plant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031101285.html

Epicentre or hypocentre

Epicentre in the introduction should be changed to hypocentre, since that is what the sentence describes. 82.196.164.98 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain further? --Crunch (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Epicenter is the point on the surface above the Hypocenter. Sentence mentions the depth below, so is talking about the focus, also known as the Hypocenter. Amended. - JVG (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A map

Map of the Senadai Earthquake 2011

Tsunami maps

There are two tsunami maps now available, one or both might be useful in the tsunami section.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The first map, when viewed small, looks like a Hokusai print. Just sayin'

Foreshocks

The infobox has an entry for aftershocks, but the various news channels are talking about several foreshocks. It would be good to add info about that. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation and reference for this? CNN's coverage indicated that there were no foreshocks. --Crunch (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a 7.2 on the 9th [14]. Gecko G (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
And the USGS report on the 8.9 quake lists "The March 11 earthquake was preceded by a series of large foreshocks over the previous two days, beginning on March 9th with an M 7.2 event approximately 40 km from the March 11 earthquake, and continuing with a further 3 earthquakes greater than M 6 on the same day." [15]. Gecko G (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This page [16] seems to list every single one. --cesarb (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added foreshock info to the article, but the template doesn't have a place for it. QVanillaQ (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Emergency?

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-2011-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.232.60 (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In turn it looks like that source relies on tweets. Not exactly reputable in my eye. I saw one report that stated clearely that the fire was in a turbine building unconnected to the reactor. On the other hand, as I'm typing this I heard the France24 announcer has picked up this "Japan has declared a Nuclear Emergency" line, and they have given a slightly different translation of the Japanese PM's speech from previously on the issue, so who knows.... Gecko G (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
BBC's live news stream states that it is only a precautionary measure as the cooling system had failed during power failure on shut-down phase. The journalist has mentioned the Fukashima Dai-ichi plant is the one in question. One tweet states that nearby residents are not being evacuated for it. Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Fox News Channel is now reporting a precautionary evacuation of 2000 people near the plant, but that it shouldn't be a serious issue at this point. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
(this predates Rdfox's post) Ok, between the above washingtonpost article, the below msnbc post, and what you've just relayed from bbc, it seems like the Fukashima plant didn't cool down properly due to power failure but back up cool down units worked and the plant is now offline. Meanwhile at the Onagawa facility there was a fire (and possibly water leak) in the turbine building unconnected to the reactor. One or both of the issues resulted in a precautionary emergency being declared, but there is no current danger. Again, that's just based on me trying to make sense of the conflicting reports, I don't have any personal info about any of the places. Gecko G (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That agrees with the reports on FNC. The plant is shut down, but they're having trouble cooling the core due to the coolant system being failed; they expect that they'll be able to bring the temperature down over the next few days, using a slower method. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sky reporting falling water levels confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.199.130 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 March 2011

nuke emergency

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-2011-3 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42025882/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

These are valid sources. POST.

Can the BBC news feed be referenced?

BBC News - Japan tsunami Is it possible to reference BBC's twitter/news feed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eug.galeotti (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the Beeb is reliable, until a more permanent source can be found. As a note for people who may be citing live television coverage, I'd recommend putting a reference note to "live television coverage" listing the broadcaster. (Example, in Tornadoes of 2010, there's a citation still in place to something that I put in, cited to WLNS-TV live coverage.) It's not ideal, but it provides some information as to the source. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarkozy's Response to the tsunami and earthquake

{{edit semi-protected}} New international reactions to the earthquake, http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_644053.html

76.97.4.84 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Disabling template since there is no specific change to be made. Source could be used in the "International assistance" section. Amalthea 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Haaretz.com reports a passenger boat with 100 passengers reportedly swept away. Reliable?

Massive earthquake and tsunamis hit Japan; 46 dead, many missing Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reuters has the same information, [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.4.84 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so there is a more reliable news source. I am not certain how to add this information to the main article, so can someone else do this? Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Just to confirm I've amended this to the main article. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can changes in oil price be listed under the Businesses section?

I ask this because I don't really consider drops in oil prices as "Businesses" but rather as "Markets", so possibly renaming the topic? If it's fine as it is, then an update can be made. RTE.ie states that there was drop in oil prices as the quake in Japan struck, as well as anticipated demonstrations in Saudi Arabia; Oil prices drop after Japan quake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eug.galeotti (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with reliable sources but...

Watching this video it is pretty obvious that the 40 dead we mention in the lede is going to be a vast understatement. I am looking for a reliable source now, not necessarily for the confirmed death total so far, but from someone who at least indicates in some reasonable way what the magnitude of this is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the casualty numbers into templates, since they were mentioned in 3 places in the article and they were constantly getting out of sync. I've added a prominent comment to help people who may not be able to figure out how to edit them. Dcoetzee 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Good. I'm looking at the reliable sources and they are being remarkably restrained about estimates. But looking at the raw video footage being posted by the news services, and as a complete amateur, I have to say that this must have killed hundreds at least. :-( --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
FNC reports that Sendai police have found at least 200 bodies on the beach. No link, just a quick mention on the TV feed, reported as being from Japanese TV. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
...and that there is at least one passenger train in the flood plain "unaccounted for." I added the Sendai police number, but without confirmation, I'm not changing the infobox. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I added in the intro that total death toll is expected to be far higher (with sources), although I don't think wild estimates of the final total numbers are likely to be useful at this stage, even if sourced, which is why no reliable sources are giving such figures right now.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia's compliance with the Japanese government in news censorship?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E5%B9%B4%E6%9D%B1%E5%8C%97%E5%9C%B0%E6%96%B9%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E6%B4%8B%E6%B2%96%E5%9C%B0%E9%9C%87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.101.246 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

...and your point is? Even if there is such "compliance," there's nothing that we can do here on en-wiki about what happens on ja-wiki. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems extremely unlikely (actually, let me go further: impossible) that there is Japanese government censorship of this event in Japanese Wikipedia. (How would that even work? A country with very broad freedom of the press would, at a moment of humanitarian crisis, decide to send police to the homes of Wikipedians? Nonsense.) It is far more likely that the Japanese Wikipedians are having trouble updating Wikipedia because power is cut across at least Tokyo and I think many other parts of Japan as well. It would not surprise me if some major Internet cables are disrupted as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It is mainly because of trolls (荒らし) that the Japanese page can't (couldn't ?) be read. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have left a note there recommended semi-protection and an insistence on reliable sources. Blanking the page and protecting it does not seem like the best solution. There are trolls everywhere; we have the tools to defeat them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)It was not Japanese government censorship. An admin made the article invisible because of vandalism and edit wars. This was the last visible version. Wiki news in ja is here. Oda Mari (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Now it's visible. Thank you Jimbo! Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider rename?

JMA is calling this "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake" - so is 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake a reasonable article title? I realise it's awkward but if there is an official or commonly-used name we'd want to stick with it. Dcoetzee 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think bad English should be considered proper use in the English-speaking world. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit early to say what the commonly-used name will turn out to be, which I guess may depend on the extent of the impact of the tsunami. Qwfp (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we can do better than "machine" translations. 2011 Tōhoku earthquake would be more appropriate if change is warranted. WWGB (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a machine translation, it's written in English at [18] (their English really is that bad). In any case I'll add redirects. Dcoetzee 13:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Since English is not an official language of Japan, Engrish names should be avoided. I'm sure the USGS or someone else will give it a better name than that awkward thing. Or the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
As said above, at this point, the name is not important. We need to concentrate on getting the most accurate and recent information for the article, sourcing it reliably, and keeping things correct. Once things have settled down in a few days, we can debate what the common name for the event will be. The initial hours aren't the time to be changing things willy-nilly; just add redirects at every name referenced somewhere and we'll sort it out later. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll also add redirects for Google's name and Wikimedia Commons' name and any others I run across. Dcoetzee 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.113.84.21, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Just a small edit on the original magnitude of the quake measured, in the second sentence of the article: "It was measured at 7[3] on the Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale..." should actually be: "It was measured at 7.9[3] on the Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale..."

121.113.84.21 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
And corrected, as the JMA intensity scale only goes up to 7 and only uses integers. The JMA would have reported a *magnitude* of 7.9 initially. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

French president proposition

I want to write this but it's protected.

  • The french president Nicolas Sarkozy wrote to Prime Minister of Japan to express its distress of the violent earthquake that struck the archipel[19].

France64160 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't protected anymore, but an item with similar content has already been added by now. Amalthea 14:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Items missing from article

I notice we mention both 4 nuclear reactors shut down - and later say 11. Which is it? Also I didn't see any mention of the chemical plant fire (cosmo refinery) or of the whirlpool we see such amazing pictures of. Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

88.000 missing

88.000 missing people, that was just reported by the local agencies.

Can't find proper english link yet, but several in other languages, like http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Offenbar-88-000-Menschen-vermisst-article2810866.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.115.181 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it seems many agencies are reporting 88,000 missing people, however I posted that on this wiki page but it was removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendwick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess there's no hurry, but it will have to be added sooner or later (I just hope the numbers won't get even worse). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.115.181 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just heard on BBC live TV that whoever gave the "88000 missing", "is backing away from that figure" - so I'd urge caution in adding it without additional up-to-date sourcing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the Asahi Shimbun, the figure is 497 as of 00:00(JST), March 12. [20]. Translation Oda Mari (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The source http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/121789/20110311/japan-quake-death-toll-rises-to-500-8-9-magnitude-earthquake.htm claims 110,000 missing. I'm wary about that number though, seems rather arbitrary, and would wither wait for confirmation by other sources, or add this with a disclaimer that only this particular source reported that high number. Amalthea 17:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The 80 000 missing is most likely a mistake from journalists (the beeb) in reading the wire from Kyodo saying "Death toll from Japan quake rises to 88, 349 missing: police", a wire followed "Death toll from Japan quake rises to 110, 350 missing: police". So 349 missing at that moment, not 80 000. Kyodo is the source I have seen quoted for the "80 000" statement, and Kyodo never had a wire saying "80 000". http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/index.html ThompsonSwe (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the kyoto release being discussed did not state "missing" but rather unaccounted for which is a little less dramatic/ominous. Just my 0.02 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm just quoting what is written by Kyodo themselves. The wording can be easily checked by following the link, then go to page 4 and time 23:03 11 March. Either way I doubt that detail is particularly important. ThompsonSwe (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Large fire at Kesennuma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYrJoWNR4Ho shows images, it was said on the BBC that the area was about 4,5x2,5 km large. Don't have a written source though. --Yaamboo (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a source in ja. [21] and the translation. Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

response netherlands

Dutch response is not added yet. The Dutch Minister of Safety and Justice (Netherlands), Ivo W. Opstelten, has said his support to Japan and that the Netherlands would sent troops when necessary. Dutch Wikipedia says the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.189.148 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, could you bring over the appropriate reference and quote (if you wish, otherwise summarise in your own words), and hence add an entry for the Dutch response in the "International Responses" section? I ask, because I assume you speak Dutch, hence a satisfactory translation by a native Dutch into English would be appreciated. Cheers. Eug.galeotti (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Placement by magnitude on list of largest earthquakes

I assume this is drawn from the chart here: Largest earthquakes#Largest earthquakes by magnitude

Two of the earthquakes listed higher took place before the invention of seismographs that recorded data in 1875. But here we see "[the 2011 earthquake is] the seventh largest in the world since records began." Records began in or after 1875, nicht wahr? 98.223.64.102 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of data we have available, including geological features that exist today from them, allow us to make a fairly good estimate on the magnitude of earthquakes within the past thousand years or so. Given how big the difference in energy released is for a tenth of a point difference in magnitude once you get into the neighborhood of 9 (logarithmic scale, remember), we can pretty much say to a tenth of a point from that data. Before about a thousand years back, however, there's not enough data available to do more than the roughest estimates. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Good estimates have been made for the magnitude of the 365 Crete earthquake based on measurements of uplift from raised shorelines on Crete, so reasonable estimates go a long way back. I think that we're talking about 'historical earthquakes' rather than 'instrumentally recorded earthquakes'. Mikenorton (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Suitability of adding status or counts for missing foreigners?

I ask this because I have already come across news sources about the Italian embassy reporting contact lost with 28 Italians (Terremoto in Giappone, persi i contatti con 28 italiani) and the Singapore embassy in Tokyo has reported no Singaporeans are hurt (Singaporeans unhurt in Japan quake: MFA). Just wondering if it may be suitable (or possibly still too soon/uncertain) to have this information added. Eug.galeotti (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong info on ship in article

The article currently says "It has also been confirmed that a ship carrying 100 people was swept away by the tsunami and smashed into north-eastern Japan", but the source given with that sentence doesn't say that the ship smashed into north-eastern Japan, the source says that the ship went missing and the tsunami smashed into north-eastern Japan. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I interpreted "which smashed" as a reference to the ship in question, whereas upon rereading it affirms your position. If so, the report should be reworded just to say a ship is missing. Apologies once again; it happened out of good faith. Eug.galeotti (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Eug.galeotti (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami damage to California coast not mentioned

I've been watching the news, and so far I can tell you some of the damage seen firsthand. About 35 boats broke loose from their moorings in Crescent City, along with one in Santa Cruz. Crescent City so far seems to be getting the worst of it. Can someone gather data on the effects of the tsunami on the West Coast and record them in this article?--Zhane Masaki (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Gather the information yourself, Zhane.217.41.243.16 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath - Casualties

"By 09:30 March 12 UTC, Google Person Finder, which was previously used in the Haiti, Chile, and Christchurch earthquakes, was collecting information about survivors and their locations.[49] [50]"

Shouldn't it be March 11? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.119.20 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've made a correction to the date, it was most probably a typographical error by the original contributor. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Support from Aflec to Response section.

"The CEO of U.S. insurance firm Aflac says the company is making a 100 million yen ($1.2 million) donation to International Red Cross to aid relief efforts. He says that the firm's Tokyo office is open, the Sendai office is closed, and that 'we have assessed all of our [Japan] offices and they are all in good shape'." From the Reuters Liveblog. [22] Another addition is the wave is travelling at 1km per 4 seconds, approximately 559 mph. Also noted in the liveblog.

Warning system

This is life footage of the quake. Just seconds after the earth stopped shaking, a computer screen is seen with a map of Japan, a mark for the epicenter and the zones of expected tsunami impact. Does anybody know how that warning system works – overruling other internet activity and bringing itself up on the screen? Henning Blatt (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a TV I think. I know that the Japanese warning system automatically notifies mobile phones in the affected area once P-waves are registered by the sensors, which gives folks about 5 to 30 seconds of advance warning. The same sensors are also used to shut down nuclear power plants and halt express trains. It's conceivable that they are also tied in with TV broadcasters and automatically show maps and information about the quake. Amalthea 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear venting

NHK just announced that the Tokyo Electric Power Company will vent the Fukushima nuclear power plant to buy the coolant shipping more time. 70.162.4.214 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.france24.com/en/20110311-authorities-fear-nuclear-leak-pressure-rises-quake-hit-plant-japan
 Done, sourced with USA Today / Fox News --joe decker talk to me 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Best of Wikipedia

It's articles like this one that really showcase the best of what wikipedia is capable of. Current events. This is so much more comprehensive and more readable than any one press release or article located elsewhere. Congrats to wikipedia on accomplishments such as this. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

agreed, breaking news stories on wikipedia read better and provide much more information than a single standalone news agency. Moreover, they provide up to the second updates that the same news agencies can't provide. JBDRanger (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless they are copyvios, in which case they have to be removed, like everything from "International Responses". That was time and efforts wasted. Eug.galeotti (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Wikipedia is current acting as a more useful summary since it is citing its sources, something news outlets are too busy falling overthemselves to report terrible and imminent further tragedy to do.LionsPhil (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is too light

As noted on the history pages, some may consider the map too light a contrast for easy legibility. Some + 1. A compromise of a more medium tone might be in order, thanks. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree.Wipsenade (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrival times

Can we get rid of the arrival times for the tsunami waves as they have already occurred hours ago? JBDRanger (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I miss that table, it was excellent information, time of arrival at various locations and amplitude is also relevant after the fact, for history and understanding of timelapse for such events.--Tallard (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the table should be restored, but should be made clear that it had already occurred. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

6.6 Nagano quake

Should we have a new article about the non-aftershock 6.6 12 March 2011 Nagano earthquake ? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes.Wipsenade (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so. Even if it's not non-aftershock due to science, it's connected in people's minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.85.186 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

O.K.Wipsenade (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Live weather channel

Solive 24: http://weathernews.jp/solive24/ (In Japanese)

Live Earthquake map:

http://weathernews.jp/quake/ (In Japanese)

Both weathernews.jp, also has special section for this: http://weathernews.jp/tohoku_quake2011/

91.156.234.20 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional condolences

Not sure where this would fit, but the Toronto District School Board offered a condolence notice for the Japanese community in Toronto:

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Previously, there was a list of international responses, but that was removed as the list was quite long and plagued with copyvio references. So it was cut down to a simple paragraph. Hence, I don't think this message from the Director will be considered for addition to the article any time soon. Eug.galeotti (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Vatican city

Pope Benedict XVI was "deeply saddened by the brutal and tragic consequences of the severe earthquake and tsunami that struck north-eastern coastal regions" of Japan, a telegram sent by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone on his behalf to Japan's Roman Catholic bishops says. The pope was praying for the dead and hoped that their families and friends would find "strength and consolation", it adds. - Ref: bbc.co.uk/news Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is covered just fine by the current international response section. The article would be 50% quotes of this type if we included all of them. Flodded (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to give you an idea of how long the list was for the previously existing "International Responses" section, look at International Responses and scroll to the bottom. Eug.galeotti (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

possible radiation leak

several sources state that there might have very well been a radiation leak at one of the Nuclear facicilies. JBDRanger (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Edited the Fukushima reactor section, reports are indeed now indicating that there's an unknown radiation leak as well as extremely high radiation levels within the facility. Flodded (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant#Meltdown 2 - 220.101 talk\Contribs 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on the American deaths.

I think it's insulting that so much detail is given on the deaths of a few morons who decided it was fun to get close to killer waves/currents. This is incredibly minor and should be removed, why on EARTH is it there? Do you know how bad it looks? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

still a death... still a lost human life in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.66.198 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, more info on the Japanese casualties will be added soon. It's just that the scale is so heavy that it will take awhile for specific details to be reported. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well then. Apparently some idols ended up in hospital, but I would be mortified if they were added. Seriously. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a death related to the Tsunami, in the casualty section of the Tsunami. It's clearly relevant. Poor opinion of the victim is not a suitable reason for omission. Stuthulhu (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, glad to see the list of international responses have been removed at least...and only countries directly involved with aid left in ^___^ --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
as an american i wholeheartedly agree, but then again, the info is still newsworthy.JBDRanger (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes but right now it looks awful. It has more detail than the 1000+ deaths in Japan. This is about undue weight. And it's only like this because of the lack of sources on the Japanese deaths. So we just have to wait. I was wrong I guess. And them being American of course doesn't make them more news worthy... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, essentially the smaller scale of the disaster in the U.S. simply makes it a lot easier to report on what has happened. Japan is obviously experiencing major upheaval and chaos currently, which makes more in-depth accounting difficult in the immediate aftermath. There's no sense bloating the Japanese casualty section with unverified rumor simply to appease 'appearances' 69.61.175.13 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes yes, I was wrong...And if my friend had her way, the two idols she likes would be in the article. Well it's dawn/morning in Japan now so, things should start to come out more quickly now. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree the amount of text is excessive; deaths like that can be listed in the affected regions table. (Which itself needs a major overhaul since it's heavily bloated.) Also, the reference was updated anyways stating that the death was from natural causes, so I edited the casualty table as well as removed reference to the Crescent City stuff in general, since now that it's just a missing person+damage it's less encyclopedic than a death as far as this article goes, in my opinion... Flodded (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead and missing

Western numbers for dead and missing are all over the map, and most of the numbers are highly dubious. As of 6 AM Japan time on March 12, TBS Japan is reporting confirmed 400 dead and 700+ missing. [23] Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be frustrating. Much as in the first few hours of the Arizona shootings, early "breaking news" even from reliable sources is often contradictory and outright false, which interacts badly with processes that are designed for contemplative encyclopedia building, rather than breaking news coverage. The main thing I find helpful is to take a moment and realize that it's more important to get it up on the site right than to get it up now. In 24 hours, we will have far better information, and we will be remembered for our mistakes far more than we will be remembered for our delays. --joe decker talk to me 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
joe decker's last sentence is very apt for breaking news like this. Please be careful when editing things like casualty numbers; a single reference will tend not to be sufficient for such an edit in this situation and at this time. Flodded (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of whirlpool?

I'm struggling to find a reliable source for the whirlpool created near the epicentre. The best I could find was this BBC page with a video clip included (LINK). If this is acceptable enough, then I would ask if it would be possible for someone to add this to the article, as I am not so certain which section would be most suitable to place it in. Would the "Earthquake" section be more suitable? Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing coverage

While we sit debating the name of the article, adding diplomat's boo-hoos, and reformulating dates in reference links, hasn't anyone noticed that none of the stuff that is showing non-stop of the news is actually in the article. No mention of the huge fires, the hundreds of homes washed to sea, the collapsed buildings hundreds of kilometers away, the closure of the airports and subways, .... Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point I just watched two videos from RussiaToday and this is some serious stuff. I think this article is trying to be too politically correct. Here is a news report including the refinery fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYT6BjfBro
Here is a video of the tsunami happening in Northern Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY2HPT7obWE&feature=watch_response_rev

Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

USAID Activates Urban Search and Rescue teams

INSARAG Teams: USAID SAR Team 1 (Fairfax County, VA) IEC: Heavy USAR -- http://vosocc.unocha.org/USAR_Directory/USARTeam.asp?USARTeamID=96 USAID SAR Team 2 (Los Angeles, CA) IEC: Heavy USAR -- http://vosocc.unocha.org/USAR_Directory/USARTeam.asp?USARTeamID=108

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2011/pr110311.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.91.120 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

5 dead in California?

All I heard are that 1 person died in Crescent City and 3 people are missing. --Vrysxy! (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source for the Crescent City causalities. Red1530 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Good source Red1530 - thanks - should it be 4 then? Also, "casualties" seems a little ill-defined for the purpose of this table IMHO but suggestions as to what it should include welcome! Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
From Associated Press via BBC [24] The US Coast Guard helicopters are searching for a man who was swept out to sea by powerful waves ... the man was taking photos of the tsunami with two friends ... in Del Norte County. The two friends were able to get back to shore. - can't see getting swept out to sea but swimming back makes one a "casualty" and of course this imples a total of three. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the sources, it lists five casualties, with one presumed dead. I am amending the casualties section in reference to this one man to "presumed dead" instead of the current "found dead" as there is no information leading to the conclusion that a body exists. It appears, based on the articles, authorities presume he is dead due to weather conditions but have not recovered a body. 173.28.153.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Sortable table

I think sortable would be better. Any objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried earlier, but with the difference in units (cm/m) i found it hard to do, but i don't know that much syntax to fix it. but i had the same thought a while ago. if you know how to do it better i have no objections. JBDRanger (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I ran into the same issue as you. I considered converting everything to meters...perhaps that's the best solution. Flodded (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done i just converted the units as you suggested and it all works fine. JBDRanger (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be (partially?) undone, not sure if someone accidentally or purposefully reverted it... Flodded (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article says it is in top 5 largest earthquakes but it is listed as number 6

Which is right? The article says it is in the top five yet this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude says it is number 6. 71.224.5.174 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now the magnitude is changed to 9.1 and is number 4. Is it 8.9 or 9.1? 71.224.5.174 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the USGS, the primary event is listed as an 8.9 magnitude earthquake: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/ Ladislaus (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article incorrect about subducting plates?

The article says the Pacific Plate is subducting under the North American Plate in the article. Pretty sure it's the eurasian plate. Not sure how to sign comments, I usually just make small edits to wikipedia so I don't bother with an account -Dimbulb0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimbulb0 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment is correct, the article for the Japan Trench indicates as much. I have made the necessary edit. JWut89LA (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on the Japanese trench was also wrong, a common mistake, look at the map at Eurasian Plate. North American Plate is correct. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I was! My apologies. The Japan Trench article may need to be edited, too, then. I seem to recall that the boundary between the two plates is not actually very well-defined, as there is very little data from Siberia... but this event will very likely be very instructive as to the mechanics of the region. JWut89LA (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
See Okhotsk Plate. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reuters source for death toll wrong?

The article now reads 1000 dead. The reuters article sourced says "set to exceed" and gives no confirmed toll. NHK World is reporting ~350, TBS is reporting ~400. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.158.9 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Reuters says "looked set to kill at least 1,000 people" in quoted source, correctly to Kyodo saying "Death toll from powerful Japan quake likely to top 1,000".
The other sourece is a TBS live feed, not a real source. Toll should be reverted to 133 confirmed + 200-300, (or similar) or have a source for 1000 confirmed. Not 1000+ geusstimate. ThompsonSwe (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN is reporting 1000 as the "official" death toll so far. Gingermint (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's template is horrendously wrong. CNN's death toll is taken from NHK's casualty toll, which combines dead and missing. It needs to be corrected. Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Daily, NHK and TBS all give significantly smaller officially numbers. Asahi Shimbun, 500 dead http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0312/TKY201103120276.html; and Mainichi Daily, 800 http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/20110311/news/20110312k0000e040057000c.html. KaraiBorinquen 06:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, KaraiBorinquen. I changed the Reuters source to Bloomberg which at the time was "nearly 500". I really do think that Japanese sources are best. There is no need in the world for Wikipedia to rush things along. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed to whatever CNN's live blog's latest figures are because their source is Kyodo News. Perhaps someone else will be able to check this later on for updates as I won't be able to for 12 hours. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed the death toll, using a Japanese source. Oda Mari (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TF1 says at least 1,500 dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.0.170.39 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Up to 10km Fukushima Evacuation Radius

Preliminary Damage caused by 2011 earthquake off northeastern Taiheiyou Country is based on the 23:21 nuclear emergency law, to residents within a 3 km radius of a nuclear power plant Unit 2 of Fukushima, a 3 km radius outside the "evacuation instructions" issued. In addition, directed the evacuation of residents within the interior radius of 3 km to 10 km. District Name evacuation instruction: City Ookuma District 1, District 2, District 3,Kazuhisa Hiroshi Futabachō (Hosoya, Koriyama, Niiyama, Shimozyou, Yamada, Hamano)

平成23年東北地方太平洋沖地震による被害状況速報

詳しくは、こちらのページをご覧ください。

21時23分　国は原子力災害対策法にもとづき、福島第1原子力発電所2号機から半径3キロメートル以内の住民に対して、半径3キロメートル外への「避難指示」を出しました。 併せて、半径3キロメートルから10キロメートル以内の住民に対して屋内待避を指示しました。

Casualties

According to this source, 19 people have died http://www.news24.jp/articles/2011/03/11/07177776.html 87.183.84.45 (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New death toll is "at least 22" according to jpost.com through Reuters (cannot find original Reuters article). Cannot find more recent numbers. Numbers are more than likely MUCH higher than the stated 22 (buildings are starting to collapse). Cannot edit main article to add sourced numbers (numbers currently listed don't have a linked source). Aggelakis (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Found this link down below. Newer details, higher casualty number. Merging with this header for consistency. Aggelakis (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
7:30 JST — death toll up to 32
Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iow23jtOtYONYT274uyXe_FjhNOA?docId=4009da9877e74d43bad6f21a54ed5238
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.186.251.235 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2011
Merging another separated-out header for consistency. Aggelakis (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
According to NHK World, 51 are now reported dead.
I have no internet source though; should it still be revised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.81.153 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraph, the article states that "There are over 1000 dead and 700+ missing in over 6 different prefectures", yet however this recent news article states that just over 400 are CONFIRMED dead and 700+ missing; http://www.smh.com.au/environment/more-than-1000-feared-killed-in-monster-quake-20110312-1brpt.html?from=smh_sb Obamas Barrack (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Daily Mirror UK newspaper, this morning, says '80,000 feared dead'. Then again, they're also considering if if it was caused by the moon.
Really though, like all such events, we're going to see all kinds of numbers in all kinds of 'reliable sources'. A scan of the last 24 hours Google News headlines indicates "1000" is one of many numbers that is currently being bandied around. I've no idea whose 'official figure' we should use though.  Chzz   ►  01:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; I suppose we will have no reliable source of information until accurate statistics are put in. I would at least like the article to be consistent with the casualty numbers; In the introductory paragraph, it states "at least 1000 people have died and another 700+ are missing in six different prefectures", yet under Casualties it states "[The] Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) has confirmed approximately 400 dead and another approximately 700 missing in six different prefectures (also reported as over 1100 dead/missing combined)". I think that the intro paragraph statement should be changed accordingly to match the second one. Obamas Barrack (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All the Italian news programmes this morning gave a death toll of 1,400.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That's an incorrect information. 1400 is the total figure of death and missing used in Japanese TV news programs in the morning. It's 06:10PM in Japan. The most reliable sources are Japanese TV news programs. Oda Mari (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The television footage shows a clearly unsurvivable wave of water arriving at coastal communities. This wave will have impacted a very long section of coastline. When the scope and consequence of this event are considered, clearly the casualty figures being stated are gross underestimations. The same early underestimation occurred in 2004. It is important that we don't "cheer the score along upward", this isn't a football game. It is also important that the magnitude of this tragedy is identified and that appropriate assistance activities are underway. Thankyou for your time reading this. Lyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.183 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? What's the matter with people?

Altering the estimated death toll from 600 to 6,000,000 is not funny or clever. It just makes you a worthless piece of garbage with no respect for what's looking like over a thousand people who have died. Don't vandalize death reports on a current event. Oh, and go to hell. The Cap'n (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconding all of the above. Thanks for having the balls to say what I chickened out of earlier this morning. - DrLight11 141.161.133.207 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. If you have been noticing the "briefing-in" paragraph explaining what the earthquake was at the beginning of the article, someone has been repeatedly putting "It has been feared Godzilla has now been awakened and that the death toll is much higher now due to his greatness" or something. Plus, as a sidenote, from time to time someone will post random garbage, like "Ryan Woods is awesome" and so on. By the way, the whole Earthquake section of the article just vanished. Was this a vandal, or intended to happen until we get more accurate information on it? Obamas Barrack (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just made [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)|another request for semi-protection]] since the old one expired a few hours ago. Too many anonymous IP vandals to handle with the edit rate on this page otherwise... Flodded (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree about the trashy vandals being kiked out.Wipsenade (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Death toll over 9000???

Okay, I haven't seen any sources yet that put the figure anywhere NEAR that high, yet "over 9000" is a meme that has already been "joked" about on this article. Is this undetected vandalism, and by an established user? Could use some help checking. - Drlight11 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, right after I go and post this, I find MSNBC mentioning the Japanese government is using that figure. Never mind! - Drlight11 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Source: BBC.) Back to Japan now: The official Kyodo news agency is reporting that about 88,000 people are missing. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698?OCID=twwnabbc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeoBey (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find this figure at this source. If its in the video feed, thats hard to document until its transcribed. Two points of logic: We don't as yet know the efficacy of the early warning systems. and as stated above, there is a difference between people missing after a day or more, and people not yet located in the first hours. All you need is for cell phones to not work, and tens of thousands will be out of the loop. Wherever this 88k is coming from, it may not have anything to do with suspected casualties yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Other regions affected

We could list out thousands of places with tsunami warnings or that received a few extra cm of water. Obviously this is not feasible, nor is it encyclopedic. I suggest a good balance would be to only list places that have reported more than minor damage, have reported casualties, have reported large-scale evacuations in mainstream media, or are otherwise notable. Having a listing for a small island that reported "two small waves" and no damage, for example, seems rather excessive. Flodded (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you what happened in Kachemak Bay. We got the crap scared out of us by the talking tsunami warning system at about midnight. Some people fled to higher ground. About an hour later they retraced the warning and said to just stay off the beach and out of the harbor. I think this is what most of Alaska experienced. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That is an excellent example of what I think should not be in the list. There are quite a few listings in the table that are basically along those lines. Flodded (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry that was basically what I was suggesting. It was a night I won't soon forget but ultimately of little note since nothing actually happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
A few waves lapping on a beach somewhere across the Pacific gets as much space as 400+ dead in Japan. This section should only report casualties or damage due to the tsunami. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Large scale evacuations are appropriate as well, if significant enough that the media covers them. Summarizing the fact that many nations have had evacuations in general would serve as a good replacement to the table I think. Flodded (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with basically all of the above. Because this is en.wiki, we tend to confuse important things with things widely reported on in English. A good way to summarize the table would be a sentence of the form: "Countries throughout the Pacific issued tsunami warnings and evacuated vulnerable areas." (There really isn't much more pertinent info in the gazillion references) Then we can add: "In particular [insert the few notable incidents]". Pichpich (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Could it be a media hoax attached to the real earthquake news? It would push up web page hits if people thought there was a tidal wave and with Tuvalu being so flat...Wipsenade (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dam

AFP report "dam in NE Japan ruptures, homes washed away" need proper sourcing and writing up. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Most of the news available relating to the dam is only one line stating that a dam broke and homes were washed away. The two news providers I found were Hindustan Times and the Deccan Chronicle. I assume this isn't ideal to mention as there is lack of substantial information on the matter, but I suppose something is better than nothing. Eug.galeotti (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well we can leave it until further details are available or simply write the fact that the rupture was reported, this being verifiable. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC).
I'd suggest leaving it since this is an article about an earthquake, not an article about media reporting on an earthquake. Flodded (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A correctly written WP article abut a current event can reasonably be both. Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Oil price

"Oil prices have also dropped as a result of the earthquake in Japan, as well as the ongoing violence in Libya and expected demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, seeing US crude drop as low as $99.01 from $100.08 by lunchtime, along with Brent crude falling $2.62 to $112.81." Can someone explain why these things, especially the second and third are attributed causes of oil prices to dropping. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

  • Anytime an oil refinery is affected, there is a drop in the global oil demand. Thus leading to a drop price. The tsunami shut down several refineries in Japan. The riots in Saudi Arabia have led to some effect in refinery production but no shut downs, and currently Libya has been fighting over a main refinery in the country.
I don't believe that's accurate. When something affects refineries, that leads to a drop in supply, not demand, and actually increases price. Thus the skyrocketing price of fuel since the unrest began in North Africa and the Middle East.
What is most likely causing oil prices to decrease is the plummeting of the Nikkei and the resulting dip in global markets. It's got nothing to do with production, it has to do with less confidence in the market in general and therefore less investing, in oil as well as other commodities. It's the same reason gas prices went down during the worst parts of the global recession, just minitiaturized. The Cap'n (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The price of oil and the price of fuel are different things. Refineries closing means that supply of fuel goes down (price goes up) but demand for crude oil drops (price goes down). Pichpich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, a value add disjunct, with respect to the refineries, I would not like to predict whether the other problems will cause an increase or decrease in either supply or demand. I would expect Japan's oil fired power stations will be producing at capacity as soon as they can, and the rebuilding will create a massive medium term economic demand. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Where is the international response article?

Where is the international response article? Intoronto1125 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was removed as it was crowding the page and was considered unacceptable with too many copyvios. Eug.galeotti (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It was huge. Right now it's been slimmed down significantly to countries directly involved with aid, and it's no longer a list. And it's factual. And the international responses, Well I'm not sure if they merit their own article, right? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
An individual article was suggested previously, but was rejected as news was still rapidly developing, so moving/creating new pages was disallowed. However, the issue was with copyright violations with all the various news source links referenced. Instead of going through the links one by one, the user just wiped out the list completely and wrote a paragraph on the matter. So I don't think an additional page will change the matter, but there's no harm in trying/asking. Eug.galeotti (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is necessary as it was done with the Haiti earthquake for example. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also support adding it into a new article at some point, albeit with a bit of copyediting (for example, do we really need three wordy sentences outlining Serbia's response, etc), but I do think it's relevant enough to be on Wikipedia, and other recent disasters do have similar pages on the wiki. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 05:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese sourcing issues

Because of transportation disruptions, it appears that a lot of newspapers in the Tokyo area were not delivered this morning, including mine. Since Japanese news doesn't have as much of an Internet presence, it means that, for right now, most of the breaking news on this earthquake within Japan will be via television. For the editors in Japan, remember, it's ok to cite a television news program in an article. Just put the news program, network, time, and date. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If you want, there's the "cite episode" template which can be used to make such references pretty, but reliably-sourced information is more important than the formatting. If you just get the info mentioned above (program, network, time and date) into a pair of ref tags, someone else will be more than happy to clean up the reference. --joe decker talk to me 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting immediate Semi-Protection

There's been a lot of vandalism on this article. Please Semi-Protect. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Lacking

Just how long did the shaking go on? No mention of the duration at all in the article. 99.2.69.235 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering this as well; pretty much all the mainstream media just says that it went on for a long time. Obviously it's going to be a range, but it'd be nice to include something like "up to a minute" or whatever since it IS relevant that this was apparently a very long earthquake. Anyone in the area want to comment? Of course we can't just use that in the article, but it'd be nice to have a rough idea without having to wait on the media... (Anyone find a source yet?) Flodded (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this eye-witness video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzAs8V9tLaI&feature=related), in the description it says that the "real intense" parts of the earthquake lasted about 3 minutes, although there were many aftershocks and it didn't clarify which actual time it happened... Obamas Barrack (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I personally experienced about a three minute shake, but obviously I'm not a reliable source. More information in sources should be forthcoming soon. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This article could do with a more general timeline on top of that: First detection, warnings, main quake, tsunami warnings, tsunami making land, maximum extent of water, time for water to recede etc. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed I'd also like to see more detailed timeline. I've heard on a news feed somewhere online that it was 2:30 of shaking. This evening on CBC RADIO ONE, they mentioned that time elapsed between earthquake and tsunami was only 5 minutes, that seemed really short to me.--Tallard (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point even subjective descriptions are informative. I've been searching for seismigraph images but haven't found any as yet. The continuous-time recorders should give a good indication of the earthquake duration and progress over time. 99.2.69.235 (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Other regions affected?

The "Other regions affected" is starting to look silly. That big table consists mostly of areas where authorities took precautionary measures (as they should) but where the feared tsunami turned out to be nothing. If we were to add a column for "reported damage" it would for the most part consist of "none" or "minor". Yes I know, one guy in California is dead and a few docks were damaged here and there but we don't need a huge table to say this and in the wider picture these are anecdotes. We should stick to the principle of due weight. Pichpich (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but we should probably continue this discussion in the existing Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Other regions affected section. Flodded (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No more editing allowed???

Hi, could anybody please explain what is up with editing of this article. I want to contribute to this article, especially from the point of view of original Japanese language news sources which are scarcely cited here. Suddenly, I cannot contribute anything anymore because the article history says "protected" for 2 whole days until 14. That's a long time to wait. This is very surprising to me. I don't understand why the article is protected against editing by editors such as me. I am not a vandal. The big problem with the article is it is relying too much on English language sources which are relatively much more incomplete about the facts than the Japanese language news sources. Please help me!! Thank you. Sign: A Saku (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that you are not an "auto-confirmed" user, then. Because of the large amounts of vandals and vandalism that have occurred before, we had to put it under some sort of restriction, as they were deleting whole articles of information instead of just minor annoying inconveniences. You would have to talk to someone of a higher ranking than me if you wanted to edit the article, under these current circumstances. Obamas Barrack (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you can still ask for edits to be made pretty easily. Simply put the new text and the sources for the information here in a new section, and mark that section with the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Someone will be along to look and make the addition. We've had an enormous problem with people making problem edits, I've reverted at least ten changes claiming that there have been millions of deaths, not to mention three claims of Godzilla sightings. We would all be very grateful for constructive additions to the article based on reliable Japanese sources. --joe decker talk to me 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You've only reverted three Godzilla sightings? :) Just wanted to add a link to the Edit semi-protected template since it has additional documentation. Flodded (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, only three, I'm sure there have been scores. I haven't really done any AV today, just in the first hour after the 'quake, then it was bedtime my time. And thanks, I should have linked that template myself. --joe decker talk to me 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there really and truly a big problem of "large amounts" of vandals and vandalism? Sorry if I have misunderstood you, but looking at the history I can't see there was a serious problem. To my thinking, vandalism is very easy and quick to correct or remove by honest helpful editors. I am sure I not the only person in this situation. I would really very much like to contribute to the article. I can read/write Japanese and also have access to original Japanese language news sources, and would like to help improve the article. Can anybody please offer practical help about this issue? A Saku (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately there was significant vandalism. Take a look at the edit history, and go back to before the current semi-protection was applied. I personally reverted 2 or 3 vandalism edits (and failed to revert several more because other people were trying to revert them at the same time!) There were a a ton more that other people reverted as well. The problem here is that the article is receiving a VERY high rate of legitimate edits since it's breaking news (I'm guessing it's been the most edited article on Wikipedia since the earthquake hit by far.) That makes dealing with the extreme vandalism going on at the same time much more difficult since you have to deal with intervening legitimate edits, etc. An admin can give you "confirmed" privileges without having to wait for your account to be autoconfirmed, though I have no idea if an admin would actually do that. However, making a few edits via the talk page here and edit semi-protected requests would probably be a good first step if you want to try to go down that route. Flodded (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You can always ask the protecting admin on their talkpage why they protected the page (in this case, User:Mahanga) although I doubt that this will result in the page being unprotected. Instead, you should try putting the edits that you want made to the article here, on the talk page, in an edit request. To make an edit request, put {{edit semi-protected}} under a new section heading, followed by a detailed description of the edits you want made. I hope this helps!! Welcome to Wikipedia :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you to both of you for explaining that. Looking at the vandalism edits, I agree they are annoying, but it seems to me like a relatively small number of edits in total. It seems unnecessary to me to stop the article being edited in this way. I would be more than willing to volunteer to remove or undo all the vandalism edits I find for the next several hours if the protection could be removed! I would be happy to stand up to that. I would love to edit the article. It is very frustrating for me to see incorrect and missing information, and not be able to edit the article myself. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "edit via the talk page here"? and "edit semi-protected requests". Do you mean that every time I would like to edit the article in any way, I would first have to make a comment here on this page? Sorry to be a nuisance, but could you explain how these things work a bit more please? A Saku (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A Saku: Yes, there has been a large problem with vandalism, not only unconstructive edits but also many edits that could have generated some significant and unnecessary panic. Are you an editor with an account on the Japanese wikipedia? If so, drop me a line on my Talk page, and I'll see if I can help in some way. --joe decker talk to me 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, take a look at the log at [25], from right before the page was re-protected. In just that 35 minute span, at least 3 different IP address users made 9 vandalism edits. That's almost 20% of edits, and even higher when you consider that several of the other edits were to revert the vandalism! I agree it sucks not to be able to edit in your situation, but unfortunately this is really the best compromise at the moment. Flodded (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A Saku, I have placed a request for your account to be 'confirmed' - here. I hope that will be processed soon, and then you will be able to edit the article.  Chzz   ►  02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now done - your account is 'confirmed' so you can edit semi-protected pages, such as 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Cheers,  Chzz   ►  02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

That was a nice job guys. Well done! WWGB (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chzz. I must admit I don't fully understand the implications of "confirmed" status, but if it means I can resume editing of the article, I would be thrilled! Thank you to all of you for your helpful and patient explanations about the way things work. A Saku (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look at WP:AUTOCONFIRM when you have the time. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will. I see I am now allowed to edit the article again, which is wonderful! One thing, though, is that every time I try and edit it, I seem to be getting an "edit conflict" message. I assume it means my edit conflicted somehow with somebody else's. Is there a way to avoid that? Am I doing something wrong? A Saku (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's correct. Try to limit the time that each edit is in progress, perhaps editing one change and then saving, rather than attempting a long update at once. Also, edit in one section rather than the whole document. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I see. I just tried making a large number of edits in one go, got the "edit conflict" message, and as I tried to recover from that, I must have done something really stupid because all my edits seem to have disappeared. Oh dear. Is there a way to get them back? Sorry if this all appears naive; I'm sure you guys get fed up with these kinds of questions popping up all the time. A Saku (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear emergency in two plants now

{{edit semi-protected}}

In addition to an emergency at Fukushima Daichi a nuclear emergency has been declared at nearby Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant at 00:14 GMT, as the cooling systems for three reactors there have failed. An evacuation perimeter of 3 km has been declared around the second plant. Last-ditch cooling methods are not yet activated, but are reported as funtional and ready. Some radioactive steam has been vented in both stations to reduce pressure inside the reactor. [26], [27] (These last-ditch efforts are a bit agressive on the core and thus makes it harder to restart them, so they're really reserved for last-ditch efforts. That's not based on the sources, just my understanding of things and thus it's not possible to add it to the article.) Sorry, don't remember how to properly cite stuff anymore. Or sign, apparently :193.40.10.181 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So is anybody handling this? I'd do it, but i have too flimsy a number of edits on enWiki (still forgetting to sign...)Jostikas (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You're actually just 2 edits short of being autoconfirmed, so I suppose you could just edit your talk page or a sandbox or whatever twice, then you'd be able to edit, silly as that method is... :) I'll add this in if nobody gets to it in a bit, but I can't at the moment. (I looked around a bit earlier, and there's some media disagreement on number of reactors, evacuation zone, etc, so for more than a blurb we really need more references I think.) Flodded (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Userpages count? Anyway, I'll scour [the press releases from TEPCO|http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031105-e.html] to see what the numbers are.Jostikas (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed the "further information" link under the Fuchimi section, adding a link to both of the reactor pages. We probably just want to list a brief overview of events regarding those reactors here, but link to more complete sections over there. This page is already way too long and will have to be broken up into multiple articles anyway later on. If you can edit the article now, feel free to edit as you'd like (as usual). If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Merged information on Fukushima II (Daini) into the Fukushima I section. It would be helpful if someone could edit the Fukushima II article to provide something closer to the level of detail that the Fukushima I article has. (Sources are sparse at the moment in English media, so help from Japanese speakers watching Japanese media would be appreciated!) Flodded (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You wanted video

This is NOAA's video of the tsunami's waves spreading out. File:20110311Houshu.ogg. I would insert it myself, but i have no clue where to put it. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)  Done

Wikinews

{{editsemiprotected}}

Wikinews has related news:

Please add n:Earthquake-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant triggers evacuation to the Wikinews banner.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

{{wikinews2|8.9 magnitude earthquake hits Japan, causes tsunami|Earthquake-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant triggers evacuation}}

184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

{{edit semi-protected}} The death toll has risen to over 1,000. (Source: 13 eyewitness news Houston) Can someone add that please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.201.41 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1,000 figure looks like to rise significantly http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-paralysed-as-deadly-quake-triggers-tsunami-in-day-of-horror-2239747.html. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would if it were true. It's not true according to Google News, at least not yet. We are very lucky to have an accurate count from Dave1185, who apparently can read Japanese. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching Japanese TV off-and-on and can report that the death count is different depending on which network you flip the channel to. The differences in numbers are between 1000 and 1400 killed and injured missing. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely on 'Dave1185' for an accurate death toll. Japanese news agencies are reporting a much greater number of dead than 'Dave1185' is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendwick (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done using Independent source. So many people editing at the moment it's hard to deal with all the edit conflicts... -- gtdp (T)/(C) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for coverage of the nuclear power plants' problems

See the discussion of the reliability of different sources at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant as well as links to what are probably some of the more reliable information sources.

At this point, most of what's out there that's reliable is ultimately coming from the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission (via the IAEA) and/or Tokyo Electric Power Company -- in other words, from engineers at the plant. That's still sparse and, perhaps due to translation issues, sometimes ambiguous. Beyond these primary sources, the mainstream media is having difficulty understanding the technical issues, introducing further confusion. Finally, in some cases, the press is "filling in the blanks" in their coverage with commentary by various pundits that ranges from "this is no big deal" to "it's the Apocalypse"; regardless of the "experts'" academic or professional credentials, such material is just speculation until further hard facts come out of the plants on which to base assessments.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, could some editors please keep an eye on these two articles:
The two editors watching them most closely are going offline now.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
RT News on MHz Worldview reported 5 nuke plants in danger and a power plant. Not enough info to cite. Apple8800 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the latest news I watched on the TV. [28] Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
All Japanese television networks have just reported the sound of an explosion and visible white smoke from the Daiichi plant. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a news article that mentions an explosion and white smoke. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Fox News Channel is reporting it, too, as is Reuters. Someone watching live TV coverage in Fukushima said that the entire plant is obscured by white smoke. It's OR to read anything into this, but I'd sum it up as "everything just went to shit." rdfox 76 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{editsemiprotected}}

  1. Change lock icon to the appropriate one. Protecting admin should have known better
  2. Fix ref, which was what I wanted to do, before I discovered that this is semi-protected. (This one is now  Done)

Thanks. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's done, then let's close the template. ;) Banaticus (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
First point is not done. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

{{editsemiprotected}}

Wikinews has related news:

Can someone restore the Wikinews box?

{{wikinews2|8.9 magnitude earthquake hits Japan, causes tsunami|Earthquake-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant triggers evacuation}}

184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude range and changes

I just changed the magnitude back to 8.8-9.1 again. Someone had changed it to 9.0-9.1, and left a "don't lower it below 9.0 without updated ref., as currently cited by 2 others at 9.0-9.1" comment in the source, after adding in references that back up those values. I feel this is blatantly incorrect at this time; there are quite a few sources with different values (to name some at the moment, CNN, BBC, and the USGS are all still reporting it as 8.9.) Thus, until we have more information, it's better to leave the wider range. One cannot pick and choose which sources to use to decide what values to list... I also changed the comment to refer people to the talk page before changing it again. Flodded (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A new analysis by USGS, based on reading taken at 256 seismometers all over the world, computed the magnitude at 9.0. This trumps all of the older reports by news organizations that were quoting the earlier USGS estimate. I intend to update the article. Note that the new analysis also slightly moves the epicenter, which I already updated. -Arch dude (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These links were removed here with an explanation that wikipedia is not a social networking site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami&diff=418420392&oldid=418420359

While that is true, these links have nothing to do with social networking. They are directly related to this earthquake, saving lives, and helping people. People coming to this page will find these links useful in the short term and after a few weeks/months they can be removed. In the short term this allows wikipedia to be of immediate assistance to people in Japan, especially via the people finder.

If these links were in the main article I would agree that they are misplaced, but the See Also section is perfectly fine, especially for given the immediate concerns of this disater.

In the meantime I am undoing this deletion. And linking the person who removed them to this explanation. If the community decides to remove these links I won't object, but please post your thoughts here.

EDIT: Here is the charity link for reference so its easy to see what we're talking about: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1221

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Google People Finder is already listed in the Casualties section, so a further mention in See Also is redundant. As for charity information, I believe it breaches WP:ELNO, in particular, 9. Links to any search results pages. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the Person Finder in Casualties ... I didn't see it there, as for the other link, it is not a direct link to any charity and does not support any group. It is purely informational so I don't think it violates WP:ELNO. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would probably agree with WWGB about the charity link here: per both WP:ELNO 9 and 13 (A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject), although I don't think I would object to a single-line link in an "External links" section. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to concur on the charity link. Not just WP:ELNO, but notability in general. Consider that this is an encyclopedia (of sorts); that's not quite the place one goes to find donation links. The Google Person Finder is definitely relevant, though! Flodded (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article has several links about well established charities that are providing aid and has slightly more general information about giving charity specifically for this disaster. But it does NOT specifically support any particular charitable group or organization so I think it still meets the WP:ELNO criteria. And the bottom line is that many people will be looking for ways to make donations after visiting this site. The link informs them of safe ways to do that and can be removed in a month or so and I definitely agree that it does not need to be a part of the article long term. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RECENTISM; that and other guidelines suggest that information like this should NOT be included. People looking to make donations can read the Charity article, use a search engine, etc. Wikipedia is not the place to go to for up-to-date information on charitable giving. Not to mention, the page you linked is for US residents, even though many of those charities are international. The contact info and such are US addresses, phone numbers, etc. Payments are generally accepted only in US dollars from those links. (So a non-US resident would pay foreign exchange fees, or might not be able to donate at all.) –flodded (gripe) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WP:Recentism applies here, but you do make a good point about the site being aimed at US residents. However how about we compromise by adding some text regarding warnings of charity scams. Here are several links that are specifically talking about charity scams related to the quake in major news sources:
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=66b13ae0-bb1d-4d14-963d-79edb2d15159
http://tdn.com/news/national/article_f07e9e40-4c56-11e0-a6a4-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14694597
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=8008600
http://www.securityweek.com/massive-influx-scams-surrounding-japans-earthquake-and-tsunami-expected
Zuchinni one (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Such an addition would be way, way outside the scope not just of the article, but Wikipedia itself; as stated previously, people wanting to donate will be able to find information much more easily through a search engine, and in light of the fact that the site is US-only, it violates WP:ELNO 7, as well as 9 and 13. I can't see this happening. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed photo

An editor has re-added a disputed photo File:Okumatsushima tsunami P1130317 rotated.jpg (which he incidentally uploaded). It shows a static tsunami warming site, taken months before this tsunami. I question its relevance to the article, as it is not about the current event, but merely decorative. Any thoughts? WWGB (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree ... I'm not sure that it adds anything. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a tsunami warning system on the coast where the tsunami directly hit. It demonstrates the readiness of the Japanese population and the precautions that had been taken against such events in the very region where it happened. Ok, it's not flashing "warning, tsunami ahead" but then stopping there for such photography would have been folly. David.Monniaux (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe it should be removed; the relevant part of it to THIS disaster is that it shows what a Japanese tsunami evacuation map looks like. However, the map portion is tiny in comparison to the entire photo, and cropping it would result in ambiguity. You have to click it to really see the map portion, and expand it to full size to actually read it, and that's too much effort in my opinion for it to be worth including amongst the many other images we have available. Now, if someone in Japan was able to take a picture of one of these things actually active during this event, that'd definitely be worthwhile to include. Flodded (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the picture with a note to see the talk page before readding it. It was really overwhelming the article since we have a ton of images around that section... Flodded (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Factual errors on this page

This page contains numerous factual errors. They stem mostly from copying text from news sources in which the authors used incorrect words and notions out of ignorance.

I am willing to help you correcting these errors, which are very serious in some cases. However, the page cannot be edited.

My credentials: PhD in seismology from CALTECH, professor of seismology for 20 years at Univ. of Colorado, endowed chair Univ. of Alaska 10 years, State Seismologist of Alaska, editor of Pure and Applied Geophys., Chairman of IASPEI's sub-commission on earthquake prediction, director of WAPMERR (www.wapmerr.org), served as adviser to governments and major international companies. Please let me know if you want my help in correcting such embarrassing errors as "a warning was sent to ... before the earthquake", which is complete nonsense and implies that the earthquake prediction problem has been solved. Also, it is elementary (even for science writers) to distinguish correctly between "magnitude" and "intensity". Maxwyss (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Prof. Dr. Max Wyss, Director of WAPMERR

Please post specific examples here and we'll be happy to edit the page for you. Thank you for offering to help. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and we'd be grateful to have your help as an expert on the subject! The reason you cannot edit the page is because you have a new account, and the page is semi-protected due to heavy vandalism earlier. Normally it takes 4 days and 10 edits to become autoconfirmed so that you could edit this, but an admin can confirm you as well. Since you do not have any edits yet, the best way to do this would probably be to follow Template:Edit semi-protected and suggest a specific change or two to this page first, which would likely help expedite having your account confirmed quickly. Flodded (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to note that the warning refers to the warning you get five to thirty seconds before the earthquake hits a certain area. The Japanese have developed a very quick and accurate system that detects this and reports it automatically on TV, radio and municipal loudspeakers. The article as it stands now does not contain the words "before the earthquake", so I believe any possible source of confusion has been rectified.
I would also like to hear specific examples of what is wrong and how it should be fixed. Dngnta (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GDACS

Interesting link to add: gdacs.org (Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System) a Joint Initiative of the United Nations and the European Commission and linked to the Virtual OSSOC (Used by SAR teams and other relief agents to coordinate their efforts). Mjjfthomas (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjfthomas (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Verified legitimacy, site has lots of useful info, added to external links. –flodded (gripe) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

...and created a GDACS page. You seem to know more about it than me, please feel free to edit it since it's just a tiny stub right now! There wasn't a ton of information other than from the GDACS site itself when I googled it. Best info I found was some PowerPoint junk from a UN website. –flodded (gripe) 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Added a small description to the GDACS page I once wrote for my thesis. Keep GDACS to your favorites it's a very useful site in the event of a natural disaster (maps etc). Also a e-mail and text update can be send to you when a event happens. Mjjfthomas (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil prices outdated

"US crude dropped as low as $99.01 from $100.08 by lunchtime, with Brent Crude falling $2.62 to $112.81." That's true but US crude then rose to $101.47 WTI chart and Brent to $114.57 Brent chart. I don't have a reference, just the charts as linked. Nurg (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it makes sense to me to keep the immediate impact in the article. The later rise was a market adjustment that was not directly due to earthquake (being just the opposite, perhaps, as a recovery from such.) I really don't like the "lunchtime" part of the text, though. I'll check the refs for a better time and fix that part if possible. –flodded (gripe) 10:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Timezone in infobox

This edit broke the metadata emitted by the infobox. {{Start date}}, per its documentation, requires a timezone value be in numeric format (or "Z"). If anyone has concerns about the way that's displayed, please raise the matter on the {{Start date}} talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted it back to UTC+9 since that has a nice wikilink. Better than the unlinked "+09:00" it was changed to, I think. I'd like to stick "JST" in there but the template doesn't seem to provide a straightforward method to do that neatly without sticking it in the same parentheses as the UTC+9 text. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK stream in English

I was looking for something like this...it's a bit of a pain to find since the main English NHK site embeds a small version of the stream that you can't zoom. Anyways, there is an excellent NHK stream in English on the NHK site here. Already learned a bunch of stuff in five minutes that the general worldwide media isn't reporting in English. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Minamisanriku

According to danish media this town: Minamisanriku is missing as much as 10,000 people -about half the population. I have no english reference. [29] --Thorseth (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now getting a lot of traction around the world. [30] WWGB (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done see below. A couple sources used 9500 rather than 10000, and I used the former figure, but it's the same town, and now well-sourced. --joe decker talk to me 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

fire at oil refinerary at sendai

There is also a fire at an JX oil refinery at Sendai http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/refinery-operations-jx-fire-idUSTKG00706520110312 please can someone add to the Oil section --87.127.117.246 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of missing

This story quotes NHK as saying 10,000 missing in Minamisanriku, Miyagi alone. 121.45.193.241 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And here, CNN quoting (I think it was Kyodo News, but read for yourself), it uses 9500 instead of 10000, and calls them "unaccounted for" which seems to be being distinguished from "missing". --joe decker talk to me 16:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done This seems reliably sourced enough to include with the more conservative reporting figures, and I have added the info to the article. --joe decker talk to me 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio images

As an inclusionist I hate to be the one to point this out, but a copyright violation is a copyright violation. The excellent Creative Commons images attributed to Danny Cho are not his, simple lifted from twitpic and what not and re-licensed when it doesn't seem to be his right to do so. Something should be done to contact the original photographers and attain real creative commons permission? I am sleeping here, so can't myself. Well, trying to sleep any way. Dang earthquakes. Nesnad (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to File:Japan Earthquake.jpg. It's either an amazing photo, or a nice photoshop job.. my first instinct was that it was fake. Mlm42 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Charities

Need to include what is being done to repair the damage, particularly by charities.Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, once that effort happens (so far I've only seen info about search/rescue/fire/etc. work). If you got sources, add the material! --joe decker talk to me 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

International Responses

Where are the is the breakdown of the International responses from various countries and their leaders? The person who removed them is doing a disservice to this article. At least make create a link to the various responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.201.167 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why were they deleted but I have added an expansion request for that section.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted because of concerns over copyright violations with all the various news sources. A seperate page for this would be fantastic. I noticed a similar thing was done for the ongoing uprising in Libya, so I think it's perfectly suitable to have a seperate page for the responses by the international community for the disaster at hand. At least that means all of the work previously compiled can be restored. Eug.galeotti (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated casualties at over 1,000

According to Channel NewsAsia, the death toll currently stands at 1,000, with 10,000 uncounted for. [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordThrall (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Containment Building vs. Containment Vessel

So, similar to the section above, there seems to be some confusion as to what was damaged during the blast at the Fukushima Nuclear Facility. All of the pictures, video footage, and documented reports state/show that the containment Building was destroyed by the blast (believed to be a hydrogen explosion via melted nuclear fuel). However, the inner, solid-steel containment Vessel was reported to be undamaged. How? I don't know. Given the design of a BWR reactor, melting fuel should have created a hydrogen bubble within the containment vessel itself... perhaps the explosion occured just as they were trying to vent pressure...

At any rate, the building was destroyed, the containment vessel was not. End-of-story. Therefore I edited the intro to reflect this. Please do not revert unless discussed here first, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Might it be that the containment vessel was breached, but not destroyed. Toby Douglass (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible... however if that were true then the radiation levels at and in the vicinity of the plant would have seen a massive spike. Since they have remained more-or-less stable even after the explosion it seems likely that the explosion happened in an auxiliary coolant system located outside the containment vessel itself. Besides, recent media reports state that workers re-entered Reactor 1 after the blast and found no integral damage to the vessel. The day is still young of course and residual core heat will continue to build for a number of days after the initial shutdown. If they cannot restore coolant flow over the core ASAP then they might be faced with a breach... Cwill151 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1103/11c/201103111620.html
  2. ^ http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/COMM/DOEPRESS.NSF/a1d7af052e94dd120a2561f7000a037c/8317b4459abdbfa80a257211008333eb?OpenDocument
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami/Archive_1&oldid=1080935593"