Jump to content

Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

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

Incorrect Information regarding Taiwan's aid

[edit]

Hello guys, the section that's incorrect is this part: "Taiwan provided over US$372 million in aid from the government and charity organizations combined.[61]"

The citation link says "Taipei, March 19 (CNA) Taiwan's Red Cross Society had received donations in excess of NT$1.1 billion (US$372 million) "

However, That should really be 37.2 million. I believe the news post missed a decimal point.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=eIr&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=1.1+billion+taiwan+dollar+to+US+dollar&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.132.251 (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information regarding Canada's aid

[edit]

Canada has not yet sent any personnel to Japan. It has offered aid to the Japanese government and is awaiting response to send it's DART team as well as various experts. Blankets have been sent to Japan. "The array of capabilities that the government of Canada has offered to the government of Japan includes a 17-member disaster victim identification team, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear technical expertise and equipment, Canadian Forces military assets to facilitate humanitarian relief efforts, relief stocks, and emergency medical and engineering capabilities," Cannon said in a statement. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.170.92 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American bias

[edit]

I am appalled that a small number of editors have sought to dominate this article with pro-American propaganda.[2] The excessive detail of American assistance and minutiae is undue and demeans the efforts of other nations. Please show some restraint and respect. Many countries are trying to help Japan, not just the mighty USA. WWGB (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Nation Response section is not "American bias"

[edit]

As stated in multiple locations, there was information being moved onto this page and partly as the luck of the draw and partly reflective of facts on the ground there was material on the US airbase hub and aircraft carrier operation which are major, major players in the field. Your comment that you find it "grossly offensive" is POV to which you are entitled but probably what offends you is the fact of US hegemonism in post-WWII Japan. Wikipedia is not a place to vent or lament the facts of history it is a place to present the truth of the matter. In this case, Japan has many US bases and those bases are major hub of humanitarian operation.

Part of that same whole entire section deleted by the above editor included information on the Russian response and part of that editorial effort also included the EU response either here or on the incoming page which was a related topic page on the Fukushima disaster. Please do not make further wholesale deletions of true, cited, relevant information without posing the deletion for discussion. Feel free to add BALANCE by adding other Major Nation Response or at minimum, by restricting your deletion to partial deletion to add conciseness. Thank you for being capable of accepting some criticism and modifying your editorial activity in consultation with other editors. 12.234.82.137 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the detail of US military involvement has been moved to Operation Tomodachi which is getting substantial media coverage in its own right. A brief (1-2 sentences) summary of that operation could be added here. It is bigger than many other non-combat military operations involving the United States. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creation of the Operation Tomodachi page.However, there is now a donut hole in that the above page only covers the US military response. If there is still not a page on the non-military US response, we need either that or a section covering that because it is a massive response, already. Meanwhile, please ease up on delete button and discuss your views here, thanks. Geofferybard (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Where?

[edit]

Where are the international flags to differentiate and make for easier reading? Where are the international leaders comments about the tragedy? Many of the leaders have send their condolences to the Japanese government including their offer to help the Japanese in their time of need. They should be included without conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.6.56 (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — 60.231.6.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No flags, no condolences. This article is about humanitarian response, not flagcruft and hollow platitudes. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, specifically in the Governmental responses section, there was no flagcruft violation (especially that currently there is a list, not a prose): any willing editor can check the WP:FLAGCRUFT criteria to verify the validity of edits like this one. Such usages are not prohibited by the existing guideline. Looks like it's all about personal visual preferences. Brandmeister t 12:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB Your point about flags seems like it might have merit but please do not be so dismissive of "condolences". There is a role for courtesy, etiquette and protocol. Your point is valid to the extent that we don't want to jam up the encyclopedia entry with a long repetitive list of phrases but there are fine distinctions and there are important inferences to be drawn from statements you might too readily dismiss as mere condolences. SPecifically, the warmth of the CHinese response and also Russia's is very important in that they indicate detente or thawing of chilly relations with Japan. Also, dictatorships controlled by humorless committees of juandiced operatives often signal huge policy shifts by small adjustments to their rhetoric which you might overlook as irrelevant "condolences". (No I dont mean wikipedia or the ARB, I mean the CCCP and Moscow )

Let us remember that the humanitarian response is based up on compassion not mere Realpolitic. Statements by officials can be important even if on the face of it appear to be empty platitudes. But yesm I agreem flags are a bit much IMO12.234.82.137 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more countries!

[edit]

I realise it might be hard to find references to trustworthy sources, however it would be desirable to have a more complete list of countries, since I've seen on the main wikipedia article that as many as 90 countries all-together offered assistance to the Japanese government.

Let's add countries into this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.224.201 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested elsewhere and contrary to some wholesale deltion, it is more important IMO to cover the major players than create a fully inclusive list of each and every micro-nation that sends a care package. Let's sift the wheat from the chaff and try to create an informative web presence that can actually be useful 12.234.82.137 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the big players will have a bigger impact on the ground, but very large donations by charities are fuelled by a plethora of tiny donations made by individual donors. The flow of small donations is at least as important as single, large donations. It is very touching that everyone donates according to their own means. In that spirit, I am strongly in favour of listing small governmental donations (in cash, in equipments, goods or personnel) by small countries, and by countries who have their own problems and a very weak economy. On some level, their donation count as much and should be listed accordingly. AugustinMa (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

This article is outdated. For example, 50 Russian rescuers have been in Japan for almost two days now and are now working near Sendai airport if I recall correctly. Yesterday АН-74 with 25 more rescuers flew to Japan. Ministry of Emergency Situations Sergey Shoigu said that they are planning on doubling the number of rescuers working in Japan. You can find sources here - http://www.mchs.gov.ru/news/?lang=eng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.224.3 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a timeline article. Timeline of the aftermath to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami would be good... it could document events, like when the rescuers were announced, when they arrived, when death tolls are changed, etc. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia

[edit]

Please, add Armenia's assistance to Japan according to the news below, in order to increase the article:

http://times.am/2011/03/14/armenia-is-ready-to-assist-japan/ http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2011/03/14/armenia-rescuers-japan/

I also suggest to format the artcile with flags followed by the name of the country. Thank you. --Sarkoulik (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tomodachi

[edit]

Operation Tomodachi is the US military component of the response. It is not the name for the overall response. Please stop adding this to the lead section. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's internal response

[edit]

Where is Japan's internal response documented? There has been a massive army mobilisation to help deal with the disaster, and a massive amount of aid is needed for the affected area. That, to me, is a large part of the humanitarian response to this crisis (probably the largest part of the humanitarian response). Where is that covered? Carcharoth (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a section above the international governmental responses, called ==Japanese response== or something. I still think we need a timeline article as well. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sectional organization: Major Responders, or Large entries intermingled?

[edit]

An equalitarian list of nations with equal time for all is a nice idea and I don't have a problem with that. But if there are certain major players, do we wish to reflect the facts on the ground in wikipedia articles?

Obviously, we do.

Thus, please decide which of these options are superior:

Option A: One long list of nations in alphabetical order, with SOME LARGE and SOME SMALL entries.

Option B: A separate section for Major Responders.

Option C: Primary reliance on linked separate articles for Operation Tomodachi .French response to the 2011 Japanese disaster US. Russian, Chinese, etcetera 

Geofferybard (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say about this is that the term "Major Responders" is an artifact and has no agreed meaning. I happen to think that a donation from Kandahar is a "major response" since they could have instead spent the money on their own rebuilding. An alphabetical list is quite adequate, only excessive detail would make "SOME LARGE" entries. WWGB (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To allow everybody to decide what is a "Major responders", organizing the data in a table looks may be more adequate. Shall we go for it ? Columns in the table could be the amount donate, the size of the team rescue send on the field, and the goods sent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androgena (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"charity" vs "non-governmental"

[edit]

Why are we renaming the section to "Charity responses" from "non-governmental responses"? Not everything in that section is a charity. If it is renamed to "charity", the non-charities should be deleted, or moved to a different section. 65.93.13.60 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Good point, agreed. NGO Response makes sense. Religious, international, etc. can be subcategories.Geofferybard (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charity by pop stars?

[edit]

Shouldn't the article write about the charity campaigns made and funds raised by famous music artists such as Lady Gaga (wristbands), Linkin Park (T-shirts), Simple Plan (T-shirts)? The Black Eyed Peas are already in the list. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pacific Assist

[edit]

Please write on Operation Pacific Assist (ja:パシフィック･アシスト作戦) by the Australian Defense Force. Operation Pacific Assist--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rtnews template

[edit]

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 05:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

--Gary Dee 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea on map

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that North Korea is not highlighted on the map of countries offering aid. I see in the list though that it offered $100,000 USD. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=1207667587"