Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.112.245.146 (talk) at 23:18, 11 March 2011 (→‎One one possible death occurred: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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。

Magnitude?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 deckertalk to me 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree. Good redirect. Ravendrop 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Few earthquakes have notable tsunamis, many earthquakes have no tsunamis at all. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 deckertalk to me 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I meant Midway, not Wake above. Still conflicting in the bulletin 8's. Gecko G (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah! this one looks better Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)\[reply]

Earthquake geophysics image

File:145 40.gif

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you explain further? --Crunch (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
There was a 7.2 on the 9th [14]. Gecko G (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This page [16] seems to list every single one. --cesarb (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sky reporting falling water levels confirmed— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
 Done Just to confirm I've amended this to the main article. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Now it's visible. Thank you Jimbo! Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WPhase Moment Solution / Magnitude

The calculations on this page ( http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/neic_c0001xgp_wmt.php ) for the earthquake shows that the actual moment magnitude for this is 9.0, though the rest of the pages on usgs don't seem to have been updated yet. Should the article be changed to reflect this, or stick with the 'official line'? AJ Kirwin (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with the official line for now; the event will be reviewed by a human later and the official figure will be updated. Note that 8.9 is the third official magnitude reported by USGS already. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. [20] Another addition is the wave is travelling at 1km per 4 seconds, approximately 559 mph. Also noted in the liveblog.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
According to the Asahi Shimbun, the figure is 497 as of 00:00(JST), March 12. [21]. Translation Oda Mari (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's a source in ja. [22] and the translation. Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami → 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami — I understand that a lot of news reports seem to refer it as Japanese earthquake rather than other words like Sendai. I doubt that many of the readers even know what Sendai is. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see a news report reporting as Sendai earthquake. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. This isn't the time to be discussing a rename, as I mentioned above. Redirects are cheap; put that in place instead and leave it here for now. We'll sort things out when the news has settled down in a week or so and an accepted commonly-used name has developed. Let's concentrate on getting our article accurate, deep, and reliably sourced at this point. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But might not the naming of the Wikipedia article influence the naming in the news? It has been demonstrated before that information form Wikipedia flows back and shapes issues. The naming of the article now has a good chance of influencing the naming on the news which than will be used to source the naming in the Wikipedia in the aftermath. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with any WP policy that suggests that we should rename articles with the goal of influencing what an event is called. --joe deckertalk to me 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one against Original Research which this name and any other would be. My statment wasn't about renaming the article with the goal to influence the name of the event, but that leaving it as is will influence what the event will be called. We are creating the information which we will source later as correct. --94.134.216.119 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(a) That's a different question entirely, and (b) the use of a plainly descriptive title, which this is, is not in my view WP:OR. --joe deckertalk to me 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect that in the not too distant future that this article will be renamed Great Tohoku earthquake. And I would support a move to that title. --Tocino 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan

There have been other earthquakes in Japan constantly. Shouldn't the title of this be more specific e.g. 11 March 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami? Earlier this week there was another tsunami with a smaller earthquake. Simply south...... 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the move request above. Thought i might as well move this here. Simply south......

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Done Eug.galeotti (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name issue

I don't have a strong opinion on what the article's name should be. But I strongly recommend discussion before any move to a new name and I would in fact favour a move-protection for a few days until the topic can be discussed at length. Clearly, the current name (2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake) was chosen without consultation, is poorly capitalized and is grammatically incorrect so the article should be moved back for now. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea has move-protected the article. --joe deckertalk to me 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very much support the name 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. It looks like Asahi Shimbun is calling it 東日本大震災 higashi-nihon daishinsai ("Great Eastern Japan Earthquake"), after the Kōbe earthquake which is these days commonly called 阪神・淡路大震災 hanshin awaji daishinsai ("Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake"). But it's far too early to be changing the name. Let's wait two or three days. Dngnta (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say 2011 Sendai earthquake for the earthquake itself, with a sub-article 2011 Sendai earthquake tsunami for the associated tsunami. Even if there was no tsunami, this would definitely warrant an article. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

International response section

It's already starting to get a bit unwieldy, I suggest we it be split to help reduce the size of a growing article. --Hourick (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be split just because "that section is big". That's the dumbest way to determine splits. It hasn't enough dynamic to be it's own bloody article. 169.139.19.108 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 169.139.19.108. As the story is still (rapidly) developing, the last thing we need is a new page to complicate the update process. As recommended earlier, let discussions for splits and moves be left for a later time when the news levels drop. Right now there is no urgency for a new section. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
169.139.19.108 is me at the library. I think articles are split way too readily on wikipedia on the basis of nothing but size with all disregard to merit. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Eug.galeotti any move or split discussions should be held after the page dies down a bit - it's more helpful in an event like this to just get all the information into one page for a day or so, then deal with page splits and such later. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the section is littered with copyright violations I've removed the section. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkativerata, messages of condolences from politicians have no value whatsoever. Actions taken by nations however is noteworthy.BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold (since I'm sure the copyvios only affected some items), but seconded: A list of such reactions as we had aren't useful in this article. Someone has already started rebuilding international relief efforts in prose, that's much better. Amalthea 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - just to explain for anyone asking (I've already had questions on my talk page). About 7 out of 10 that I looked at were copyvios: I thus decided to remove the whole thing as (a) leaving the remaining three out of ten would look silly; (b) no-one should have to do that kind of line-by-line fixing; and (c) as Amalthea says, we now have the opportunity to write a shorter and more focused prose section. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully support Mkativerata's judgment, the format for international response sections is very well precedented as a list format with both statements from leaders and how those countries contributed to relief efforts. The section should be rebuilt in that style (rebuilt, not re-added) as soon as possible and eventually split into its own article. Swarm X 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know to what extent it really is precedent: see the recent 2011 Christchurch earthquake article. If it is a precedent, it is, in my view, not a good one. First, articles should promote prose, not lists, as the preferred method of communicating information. It enables greater flexibility in writing, and is more readable. Second, because of its inflexibility the format fails to emphasise the most important information: ie, the countries and organisations whose reactions and assistance is the most important. With all due respect to Armenia, I don't think the letter of condolence from its President to Japan's Emperor warrants a single byte of coverage in this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, International response to the Beslan hostage crisis, Humanitarian response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France#International etc. It isn't easy to state the response of 25, 50 or 100 countries in prose. That's the purpose of the list format. Swarm X 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to question the need to state the responses of 25, 50 or 100 responses at all. How many of the responses are actually signficant? Certainly is seems over the top for the head article about the event (the links you've given are all to article splits, which is less problematic). We have about 80-100kbs here to present an article about the whole of the earthquake and the tsunami. Devoting 26kbs (as the section was) to stock-standard condolence messages from often insignficant countries to Japan is, in my view, overkill.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Rgds, Swarm X 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

Please add because i am not allowed to.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, only recently elected, sent a telegram to the Japanese prime minister and issued a statement that afternoon saying "Ireland stands ready to assist our Japanese friends in any way possible."[3][4] The Department of Foreign Affairs said no Irish had been reported injured.[5] Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore was in Budapest but was in contact with John Neary, the Irish Ambassador in Japan.[6] --89.101.190.70 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... On it -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Chief Executive, Financial Secretary and Under Secretary for Security have also responded to the quake and tsunami. [23] 218.250.143.188 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... page has been loading awfully slow for a while... -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not, it's only semi-protected, only autoconfirmed can edit it at the moment (but that's enough to stop IPs from editing). I left a note on the IP's talk page: for anyone else, the {{editrequest}} template is only for fully-protected articles, not this one. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

will Pope John Paul II pray for the victims?

will Pope John Paul II pray for the victims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.194.213 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
God's love is relivent to all.Wipsenade (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Swarm X 20:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-) !Wipsenade (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a source for the Crescent City causalities. Red1530 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]


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).[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
as an american i wholeheartedly agree, but then again, the info is still newsworthy.JBDRanger (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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. [25] Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 deckertalk to me 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Where is the international response article?

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

One one possible death occurred

Only one possible death has occurred thus far. According to Newsmax one person was swept away while photographing wave activity on a river in Northern California. The talk of 400+ Jap deaths is not relevent compared to an American. 69.112.245.146 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  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
  3. ^ "No Irish reported missing in Japan". TV3 News.
  4. ^ "Taoiseach offers condolences and pledges assistance to victims of Japanese earthquake". TheJournal.ie.
  5. ^ "Kenny offers Japan earthquake help". Press Association.
  6. ^ "Tsunami strikes coastal areas of Japan". RTÉ News.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=418372372"