Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Article incorrect about subducting plates?

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

Your assessment is correct, the article for the Japan Trench indicates as much. I have made the necessary edit. JWut89LA (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Japanese trench was also wrong, a common mistake, look at the map at Eurasian Plate. North American Plate is correct. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I was! My apologies. The Japan Trench article may need to be edited, too, then. I seem to recall that the boundary between the two plates is not actually very well-defined, as there is very little data from Siberia... but this event will very likely be very instructive as to the mechanics of the region. JWut89LA (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See Okhotsk Plate. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reuters source for death toll wrong?

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

Exactly, Reuters says "looked set to kill at least 1,000 people" in quoted source, correctly to Kyodo saying "Death toll from powerful Japan quake likely to top 1,000".

The other sourece is a TBS live feed, not a real source. Toll should be reverted to 133 confirmed + 200-300, (or similar) or have a source for 1000 confirmed. Not 1000+ geusstimate. ThompsonSwe (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia's template is horrendously wrong. CNN's death toll is taken from NHK's casualty toll, which combines dead and missing. It needs to be corrected. Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Daily, NHK and TBS all give significantly smaller officially numbers. Asahi Shimbun, 500 dead http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0312/TKY201103120276.html; and Mainichi Daily, 800 http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/20110311/news/20110312k0000e040057000c.html. KaraiBorinquen 06:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, KaraiBorinquen. I changed the Reuters source to Bloomberg which at the time was "nearly 500". I really do think that Japanese sources are best. There is no need in the world for Wikipedia to rush things along. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed to whatever CNN's live blog's latest figures are because their source is Kyodo News. Perhaps someone else will be able to check this later on for updates as I won't be able to for 12 hours. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the death toll, using a Japanese source. Oda Mari (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Up to 10km Fukushima Evacuation Radius

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

平成23年東北地方太平洋沖地震による被害状況速報

詳しくは、こちらのページをご覧ください。

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

Casualties

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

New death toll is "at least 22" according to jpost.com through Reuters (cannot find original Reuters article). Cannot find more recent numbers. Numbers are more than likely MUCH higher than the stated 22 (buildings are starting to collapse). Cannot edit main article to add sourced numbers (numbers currently listed don't have a linked source). Aggelakis (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Found this link down below. Newer details, higher casualty number. Merging with this header for consistency. Aggelakis (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

7:30 JST — death toll up to 32

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iow23jtOtYONYT274uyXe_FjhNOA?docId=4009da9877e74d43bad6f21a54ed5238

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.186.251.235 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2011

Merging another separated-out header for consistency. Aggelakis (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to NHK World, 51 are now reported dead.

I have no internet source though; should it still be revised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.81.153 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

And the Daily Mirror UK newspaper, this morning, says '80,000 feared dead'. Then again, they're also considering if if it was caused by the moon.

Really though, like all such events, we're going to see all kinds of numbers in all kinds of 'reliable sources'. A scan of the last 24 hours Google News headlines indicates "1000" is one of many numbers that is currently being bandied around. I've no idea whose 'official figure' we should use though.  Chzz  ►  01:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

All the Italian news programmes this morning gave a death toll of 1,400.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an incorrect information. 1400 is the total figure of death and missing used in Japanese TV news programs in the morning. It's 06:10PM in Japan. The most reliable sources are Japanese TV news programs. Oda Mari (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

That may be an early estimate, based on the data available at the USGS at the time. (The current estimate may be revised again, of course.)  Cs32en Talk to me  02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Support from Aflec to Response section.

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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 decker^{talk to me} 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

(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 decker^{talk to me} 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Rdfox 76 --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Move-protected for a few days to prevent further unilateral moves, if you find consensus for a name feel of course free to immediately remove/bypass protection. Amalthea 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose First of all we should not assume that "many of the readers (don't) even know what Sendai is". Secondly, most WP earthquake articles have the name of the most affected regions in their titles, see Great Kanto earthquake and Great Hanshin earthquake. Third, Japan experiences numerous earthquakes each year, so "2011 Japanese earthquake" is too broad. --Tocino 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Strong Oppose - see below. Simply south...... 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose perhaps tsunami should come first, "2011 Japanese tsunami and earthquake", since the tsunami has more impact, as long as there are no criticality events for the nuclear power plants. "Weak oppose" because there are undoubtably other Japanese earthquakes for 2011 and I can crystalball several large ones for the rest of the year. There's already been the 12 March 2011 Nagano 6.6 quake, that's a separate quake.[2]; Though in construction of the major tsunami, it could be the "2011 Pacific tsunami and earthquake" 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sendai isn't even mentioned in the lead, and the media doesn't seem to be mentioning Sendai either. Sendai is where it happened, but all of Japan was affected. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It should be moved to The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake, the official English name in Japan. See [3]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment but we don't use official names... we use common names... 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Too precise, though March 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami is a somewhat logical redirect, if anyone wants to bother.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? What's the matter with people?

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

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

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

I just made another request for semi-protection since the old one expired a few hours ago. Too many anonymous IP vandals to handle with the edit rate on this page otherwise... Flodded (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Warning system

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

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

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)

Amalthea has move-protected the article. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Where did the name "2001 Sendai earthquake" come from in the first place? Ardric47 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably from the fact that some early news reports said that the quake was near Sendai... (some later reports said Miyagi...) 184.144.160.156 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of whirlpool?

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

Disappointing coverage

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

Good point I just watched two videos from RussiaToday and this is some serious stuff. I think this article is trying to be too politically correct. Here is a news report including the refinery fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYT6BjfBro

Here is a video of the tsunami happening in Northern Japan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY2HPT7obWE&feature=watch_response_rev

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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." The Department of Foreign Affairs said no Irish had been reported injured. Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore was in Budapest but was in contact with John Neary, the Irish Ambassador in Japan. --89.101.190.70 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... On it -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Chief Executive, Financial Secretary and Under Secretary for Security have also responded to the quake and tsunami. [4] 218.250.143.188 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

 Done -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't know the article was ever fully protected. Was it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

Armenia

I would like to suggest to insert at the section International response to the earthquake all countries which had sent condolences and humanitarian aids to Japan. Flag style, as all international events in Wikipedia. I take this oportunity to publish this news Armenian president sends condolences to Japanese Emperor in order to help to increase this section. --Sarkoulik (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Singapore

Singapore deployed 5 search rescue specialist and 5 search dogs to assist search operations in Sendai. Muckysock94 (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Muckysock94 (User talk:Muckysock94|talk]])

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)

Nuclear venting

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

http://www.france24.com/en/20110311-authorities-fear-nuclear-leak-pressure-rises-quake-hit-plant-japan

 Done, sourced with USA Today / Fox News --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Best of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

The map is too light

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

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

Arrival times

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

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

I miss that table, it was excellent information, time of arrival at various locations and amplitude is also relevant after the fact, for history and understanding of timelapse for such events.--Tallard (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the table should be restored, but should be made clear that it had already occurred. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

6.6 Nagano quake

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

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

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

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

5 dead in California?

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

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

Good source Red1530 - thanks - should it be 4 then? Also, "casualties" seems a little ill-defined for the purpose of this table IMHO but suggestions as to what it should include welcome! Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

From Associated Press via BBC [5] The US Coast Guard helicopters are searching for a man who was swept out to sea by powerful waves ... the man was taking photos of the tsunami with two friends ... in Del Norte County. The two friends were able to get back to shore. - can't see getting swept out to sea but swimming back makes one a "casualty" and of course this imples a total of three. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Death toll over 9000???

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

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

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

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

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)

Other regions affected

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

I can tell you what happened in Kachemak Bay. We got the crap scared out of us by the talking tsunami warning system at about midnight. Some people fled to higher ground. About an hour later they retraced the warning and said to just stay off the beach and out of the harbor. I think this is what most of Alaska experienced. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent example of what I think should not be in the list. There are quite a few listings in the table that are basically along those lines. Flodded (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry that was basically what I was suggesting. It was a night I won't soon forget but ultimately of little note since nothing actually happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A few waves lapping on a beach somewhere across the Pacific gets as much space as 400+ dead in Japan. This section should only report casualties or damage due to the tsunami. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Large scale evacuations are appropriate as well, if significant enough that the media covers them. Summarizing the fact that many nations have had evacuations in general would serve as a good replacement to the table I think. Flodded (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with basically all of the above. Because this is en.wiki, we tend to confuse important things with things widely reported on in English. A good way to summarize the table would be a sentence of the form: "Countries throughout the Pacific issued tsunami warnings and evacuated vulnerable areas." (There really isn't much more pertinent info in the gazillion references) Then we can add: "In particular [insert the few notable incidents]". Pichpich (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could it be a media hoax attached to the real earthquake news? It would push up web page hits if people thought there was a tidal wave and with Tuvalu being so flat...Wipsenade (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dam

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

Most of the news available relating to the dam is only one line stating that a dam broke and homes were washed away. The two news providers I found were Hindustan Times and the Deccan Chronicle. I assume this isn't ideal to mention as there is lack of substantial information on the matter, but I suppose something is better than nothing. Eug.galeotti (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we can leave it until further details are available or simply write the fact that the rupture was reported, this being verifiable. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

I'd suggest leaving it since this is an article about an earthquake, not an article about media reporting on an earthquake. Flodded (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A correctly written WP article abut a current event can reasonably be both. Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Oil price

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

• Anytime an oil refinery is affected, there is a drop in the global oil demand. Thus leading to a drop price. The tsunami shut down several refineries in Japan. The riots in Saudi Arabia have led to some effect in refinery production but no shut downs, and currently Libya has been fighting over a main refinery in the country.

I don't believe that's accurate. When something affects refineries, that leads to a drop in supply, not demand, and actually increases price. Thus the skyrocketing price of fuel since the unrest began in North Africa and the Middle East.

What is most likely causing oil prices to decrease is the plummeting of the Nikkei and the resulting dip in global markets. It's got nothing to do with production, it has to do with less confidence in the market in general and therefore less investing, in oil as well as other commodities. It's the same reason gas prices went down during the worst parts of the global recession, just minitiaturized. The Cap'n (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The price of oil and the price of fuel are different things. Refineries closing means that supply of fuel goes down (price goes up) but demand for crude oil drops (price goes down). Pichpich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, a value add disjunct, with respect to the refineries, I would not like to predict whether the other problems will cause an increase or decrease in either supply or demand. I would expect Japan's oil fired power stations will be producing at capacity as soon as they can, and the rebuilding will create a massive medium term economic demand. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Additional condolences

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

• "A Message from the Director following Japan’s disastrous earthquake and tsunami." March 11, 2011

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

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

Vatican city

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

I think this is covered just fine by the current international response section. The article would be 50% quotes of this type if we included all of them. Flodded (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of how long the list was for the previously existing "International Responses" section, look at International Responses and scroll to the bottom. Eug.galeotti (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

possible radiation leak

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

 Done Edited the Fukushima reactor section, reports are indeed now indicating that there's an unknown radiation leak as well as extremely high radiation levels within the facility. Flodded (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Meltdown_2 - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on the American deaths.

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

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

Don't worry, more info on the Japanese casualties will be added soon. It's just that the scale is so heavy that it will take awhile for specific details to be reported. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Apparently some idols ended up in hospital, but I would be mortified if they were added. Seriously. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a death related to the Tsunami, in the casualty section of the Tsunami. It's clearly relevant. Poor opinion of the victim is not a suitable reason for omission. Stuthulhu (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, glad to see the list of international responses have been removed at least...and only countries directly involved with aid left in ^___^ --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes but right now it looks awful. It has more detail than the 1000+ deaths in Japan. This is about undue weight. And it's only like this because of the lack of sources on the Japanese deaths. So we just have to wait. I was wrong I guess. And them being American of course doesn't make them more news worthy... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, essentially the smaller scale of the disaster in the U.S. simply makes it a lot easier to report on what has happened. Japan is obviously experiencing major upheaval and chaos currently, which makes more in-depth accounting difficult in the immediate aftermath. There's no sense bloating the Japanese casualty section with unverified rumor simply to appease 'appearances' 69.61.175.13 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, I was wrong...And if my friend had her way, the two idols she likes would be in the article. Well it's dawn/morning in Japan now so, things should start to come out more quickly now. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the amount of text is excessive; deaths like that can be listed in the affected regions table. (Which itself needs a major overhaul since it's heavily bloated.) Also, the reference was updated anyways stating that the death was from natural causes, so I edited the casualty table as well as removed reference to the Crescent City stuff in general, since now that it's just a missing person+damage it's less encyclopedic than a death as far as this article goes, in my opinion... Flodded (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead and missing

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

Yeah, it can be frustrating. Much as in the first few hours of the Arizona shootings, early "breaking news" even from reliable sources is often contradictory and outright false, which interacts badly with processes that are designed for contemplative encyclopedia building, rather than breaking news coverage. The main thing I find helpful is to take a moment and realize that it's more important to get it up on the site right than to get it up now. In 24 hours, we will have far better information, and we will be remembered for our mistakes far more than we will be remembered for our delays. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

joe decker's last sentence is very apt for breaking news like this. Please be careful when editing things like casualty numbers; a single reference will tend not to be sufficient for such an edit in this situation and at this time. Flodded (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the international response article?

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

It was removed as it was crowding the page and was considered unacceptable with too many copyvios. Eug.galeotti (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was huge. Right now it's been slimmed down significantly to countries directly involved with aid, and it's no longer a list. And it's factual. And the international responses, Well I'm not sure if they merit their own article, right? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

An individual article was suggested previously, but was rejected as news was still rapidly developing, so moving/creating new pages was disallowed. However, the issue was with copyright violations with all the various news source links referenced. Instead of going through the links one by one, the user just wiped out the list completely and wrote a paragraph on the matter. So I don't think an additional page will change the matter, but there's no harm in trying/asking. Eug.galeotti (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is necessary as it was done with the Haiti earthquake for example. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also support adding it into a new article at some point, albeit with a bit of copyediting (for example, do we really need three wordy sentences outlining Serbia's response, etc), but I do think it's relevant enough to be on Wikipedia, and other recent disasters do have similar pages on the wiki. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 05:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sortable table

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese sourcing issues

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

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

Requesting immediate Semi-Protection

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

Timeline Lacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other regions affected?

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

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

No more editing allowed???

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

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

Actually, you can still ask for edits to be made pretty easily. Simply put the new text and the sources for the information here in a new section, and mark that section with the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Someone will be along to look and make the addition. We've had an enormous problem with people making problem edits, I've reverted at least ten changes claiming that there have been millions of deaths, not to mention three claims of Godzilla sightings. We would all be very grateful for constructive additions to the article based on reliable Japanese sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You've only reverted three Godzilla sightings? :) Just wanted to add a link to the Edit semi-protected template since it has additional documentation. Flodded (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, only three, I'm sure there have been scores. I haven't really done any AV today, just in the first hour after the 'quake, then it was bedtime my time. And thanks, I should have linked that template myself. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, unfortunately there was significant vandalism. Take a look at the edit history, and go back to before the current semi-protection was applied. I personally reverted 2 or 3 vandalism edits (and failed to revert several more because other people were trying to revert them at the same time!) There were a a ton more that other people reverted as well. The problem here is that the article is receiving a VERY high rate of legitimate edits since it's breaking news (I'm guessing it's been the most edited article on Wikipedia since the earthquake hit by far.) That makes dealing with the extreme vandalism going on at the same time much more difficult since you have to deal with intervening legitimate edits, etc. An admin can give you "confirmed" privileges without having to wait for your account to be autoconfirmed, though I have no idea if an admin would actually do that. However, making a few edits via the talk page here and edit semi-protected requests would probably be a good first step if you want to try to go down that route. Flodded (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can always ask the protecting admin on their talkpage why they protected the page (in this case, User:Mahanga) although I doubt that this will result in the page being unprotected. Instead, you should try putting the edits that you want made to the article here, on the talk page, in an edit request. To make an edit request, put {{edit semi-protected}} under a new section heading, followed by a detailed description of the edits you want made. I hope this helps!! Welcome to Wikipedia :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

A Saku: Yes, there has been a large problem with vandalism, not only unconstructive edits but also many edits that could have generated some significant and unnecessary panic. Are you an editor with an account on the Japanese wikipedia? If so, drop me a line on my Talk page, and I'll see if I can help in some way. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, take a look at the log at [7], from right before the page was re-protected. In just that 35 minute span, at least 3 different IP address users made 9 vandalism edits. That's almost 20% of edits, and even higher when you consider that several of the other edits were to revert the vandalism! I agree it sucks not to be able to edit in your situation, but unfortunately this is really the best compromise at the moment. Flodded (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

 Done

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

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

Perhaps have a look at WP:AUTOCONFIRM when you have the time. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will. I see I am now allowed to edit the article again, which is wonderful! One thing, though, is that every time I try and edit it, I seem to be getting an "edit conflict" message. I assume it means my edit conflicted somehow with somebody else's. Is there a way to avoid that? Am I doing something wrong? A Saku (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Try to limit the time that each edit is in progress, perhaps editing one change and then saving, rather than attempting a long update at once. Also, edit in one section rather than the whole document. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. I just tried making a large number of edits in one go, got the "edit conflict" message, and as I tried to recover from that, I must have done something really stupid because all my edits seem to have disappeared. Oh dear. Is there a way to get them back? Sorry if this all appears naive; I'm sure you guys get fed up with these kinds of questions popping up all the time. A Saku (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear emergency in two plants now

{{edit semi-protected}}

In addition to an emergency at Fukushima Daichi a nuclear emergency has been declared at nearby Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant at 00:14 GMT, as the cooling systems for three reactors there have failed. An evacuation perimeter of 3 km has been declared around the second plant. Last-ditch cooling methods are not yet activated, but are reported as funtional and ready. Some radioactive steam has been vented in both stations to reduce pressure inside the reactor. [8], [9] (These last-ditch efforts are a bit agressive on the core and thus makes it harder to restart them, so they're really reserved for last-ditch efforts. That's not based on the sources, just my understanding of things and thus it's not possible to add it to the article.) Sorry, don't remember how to properly cite stuff anymore. Or sign, apparently :193.40.10.181 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So is anybody handling this? I'd do it, but i have too flimsy a number of edits on enWiki (still forgetting to sign...)Jostikas (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're actually just 2 edits short of being autoconfirmed, so I suppose you could just edit your talk page or a sandbox or whatever twice, then you'd be able to edit, silly as that method is... :) I'll add this in if nobody gets to it in a bit, but I can't at the moment. (I looked around a bit earlier, and there's some media disagreement on number of reactors, evacuation zone, etc, so for more than a blurb we really need more references I think.) Flodded (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpages count? Anyway, I'll scour [the press releases from TEPCO|http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031105-e.html] to see what the numbers are.Jostikas (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the "further information" link under the Fuchimi section, adding a link to both of the reactor pages. We probably just want to list a brief overview of events regarding those reactors here, but link to more complete sections over there. This page is already way too long and will have to be broken up into multiple articles anyway later on. If you can edit the article now, feel free to edit as you'd like (as usual). If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Plate interactions

Could somebody clarify the plate interactions that caused this quake? I added it to the table at the megathrust earthquake article, putting in "Pacific Plate subducting beneath the North American Plate" per the various sources I've read that state an arm of the North American Plate runs down under northern Japan, but it was changed to "Pacific Plate subducting beneath the Eurasian Plate." -Guessing Game (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see some clarification on this too. The Japan Trench article says the Pacific Plate is subducting under the Eurasian plate, but if you look at the plate tectonic map that doesn't seem possible except for well south of Japan at the equator where there's that four-way intersection. The Pacific Plate article isn't clear either. From the location I'd guess that this article is correct in stating that it is the Pacific Plate subducting under the North American plate. Obviously one or more articles are wrong here. Any geologists around? Flodded (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, the "tectonic map" link doesn't work. I tried to fix it, but don't know what file it's supposed to point to.Cmichael (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh, I swear it looked right in the preview. Should work now... I was trying to link to File:Plates_tect2_en.svg. Flodded (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Pacific Plate nowhere borders the Eurasian Plate. This is not special knowledge - the map at Eurasian Plate should make this clear. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but that just tells us which plates might be involved, not the specifics of the interaction. Seems like someone fixed the Japan Trench article though, so that agrees with this article now. I'll assume that both are correct at this point since maps and other sources seem to indicate that's what's going on, but I'm no expert there. Flodded (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Okhotsk Plate is subducted by the Pacific Plate, as far as I can tell. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

The Okhotsk Plate is part of the North American Plate and regarded by some as a separate microplate. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You wanted video

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

Wikinews

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

•  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

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

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

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

I'm watching Japanese TV off-and-on and can report that the death count is different depending on which network you flip the channel to. The differences in numbers are between 1000 and 1400 killed and injured missing. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on 'Dave1185' for an accurate death toll. Japanese news agencies are reporting a much greater number of dead than 'Dave1185' is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendwick (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done using Independent source. So many people editing at the moment it's hard to deal with all the edit conflicts... -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IT'S OVER 9,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reliable sources for coverage of the nuclear power plants' problems

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

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

Also, could some editors please keep an eye on these two articles:

• Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant
• Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant

The two editors watching them most closely are going offline now.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RT News on MHz Worldview reported 5 nuke plants in danger and a power plant. Not enough info to cite. Apple8800 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the latest news I watched on the TV. [10] Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All Japanese television networks have just reported the sound of an explosion and visible white smoke from the Daiichi plant. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a news article that mentions an explosion and white smoke. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox News Channel is reporting it, too, as is Reuters. Someone watching live TV coverage in Fukushima said that the entire plant is obscured by white smoke. It's OR to read anything into this, but I'd sum it up as "everything just went to shit." rdfox 76 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

If it's done, then let's close the template. ;) Banaticus (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First point is not done. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Movement of the island of Honshu?

I was hearing that the island of Honshu moved by 8 feet, which seems a little bit wild. Not sure how to find a reliable source on this, but, whether or not one is found, this article should address the movement of the land and the impact on the earth's rotation, since I saw that on the Chile earthquake 2010 article. Hires an editor (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all wild, I wouldn't have been surprised if it shifted more considering the magnitude of this quake! It would be nice to see this addressed in the article, but I suspect it may be days before we get any sort of usable information along those lines. Flodded (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, already have some information. Though, that source can't even spell the guy's last name ("Dr. Ken H8udnut", I guess he hates Udnuts.) I'd still hold off, considering that he's quoted saying that "The entire coast of Japan moved eastward by about 8 feet at the most," which instantly reminded me of yesterday's xkcd (in other words, that quote is so ambiguous that Japan could've stood still or moved in some other direction and it'd still be valid!) Flodded (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html

(CNN) -- The powerful earthquake that unleashed a devastating tsunami Friday appears to have moved the main island of Japan by 8 feet (2.4 meters) and shifted the Earth on its axis.

"At this point, we know that one GPS station moved (8 feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass," said Kenneth Hudnut, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Reports from the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Italy estimated the 8.9-magnitude quake shifted the planet on its axis by nearly 4 inches (10 centimeters).--Tallard (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

{{editsemiprotected}}

Can someone restore the Wikinews box?

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

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

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

Magnitude range and changes

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

See Also links to Google Person Finder and Charity Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google People Finder is already listed in the Casualties section, so a further mention in See Also is redundant. As for charity information, I believe it breaches WP:ELNO, in particular, 9. Links to any search results pages. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Person Finder in Casualties ... I didn't see it there, as for the other link, it is not a direct link to any charity and does not support any group. It is purely informational so I don't think it violates WP:ELNO. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would probably agree with WWGB about the charity link here: per both WP:ELNO 9 and 13 (A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject), although I don't think I would object to a single-line link in an "External links" section. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur on the charity link. Not just WP:ELNO, but notability in general. Consider that this is an encyclopedia (of sorts); that's not quite the place one goes to find donation links. The Google Person Finder is definitely relevant, though! Flodded (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has several links about well established charities that are providing aid and has slightly more general information about giving charity specifically for this disaster. But it does NOT specifically support any particular charitable group or organization so I think it still meets the WP:ELNO criteria. And the bottom line is that many people will be looking for ways to make donations after visiting this site. The link informs them of safe ways to do that and can be removed in a month or so and I definitely agree that it does not need to be a part of the article long term. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENTISM; that and other guidelines suggest that information like this should NOT be included. People looking to make donations can read the Charity article, use a search engine, etc. Wikipedia is not the place to go to for up-to-date information on charitable giving. Not to mention, the page you linked is for US residents, even though many of those charities are international. The contact info and such are US addresses, phone numbers, etc. Payments are generally accepted only in US dollars from those links. (So a non-US resident would pay foreign exchange fees, or might not be able to donate at all.) –flodded (gripe) 09:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:Recentism applies here, but you do make a good point about the site being aimed at US residents. However how about we compromise by adding some text regarding warnings of charity scams. Here are several links that are specifically talking about charity scams related to the quake in major news sources:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=66b13ae0-bb1d-4d14-963d-79edb2d15159

http://tdn.com/news/national/article_f07e9e40-4c56-11e0-a6a4-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14694597

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=8008600

http://www.securityweek.com/massive-influx-scams-surrounding-japans-earthquake-and-tsunami-expected

Zuchinni one (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Such an addition would be way, way outside the scope not just of the article, but Wikipedia itself; as stated previously, people wanting to donate will be able to find information much more easily through a search engine, and in light of the fact that the site is US-only, it violates WP:ELNO 7, as well as 9 and 13. I can't see this happening. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed photo

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

I agree ... I'm not sure that it adds anything. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a tsunami warning system on the coast where the tsunami directly hit. It demonstrates the readiness of the Japanese population and the precautions that had been taken against such events in the very region where it happened. Ok, it's not flashing "warning, tsunami ahead" but then stopping there for such photography would have been folly. David.Monniaux (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed; the relevant part of it to THIS disaster is that it shows what a Japanese tsunami evacuation map looks like. However, the map portion is tiny in comparison to the entire photo, and cropping it would result in ambiguity. You have to click it to really see the map portion, and expand it to full size to actually read it, and that's too much effort in my opinion for it to be worth including amongst the many other images we have available. Now, if someone in Japan was able to take a picture of one of these things actually active during this event, that'd definitely be worthwhile to include. Flodded (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Factual errors on this page

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

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

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

Please post specific examples here and we'll be happy to edit the page for you. Thank you for offering to help. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and we'd be grateful to have your help as an expert on the subject! The reason you cannot edit the page is because you have a new account, and the page is semi-protected due to heavy vandalism earlier. Normally it takes 4 days and 10 edits to become autoconfirmed so that you could edit this, but an admin can confirm you as well. Since you do not have any edits yet, the best way to do this would probably be to follow Template:Edit_semi-protected and suggest a specific change or two to this page first, which would likely help expedite having your account confirmed quickly. Flodded (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GDACS

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

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

...and created a GDACS page. You seem to know more about it than me, please feel free to edit it since it's just a tiny stub right now! There wasn't a ton of information other than from the GDACS site itself when I googled it. Best info I found was some PowerPoint junk from a UN website. –flodded (gripe) 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a small description to the GDACS page I once wrote for my thesis. Keep GDACS to your favorites it's a very useful site in the event of a natural disaster (maps etc). Also a e-mail and text update can be send to you when a event happens. Mjjfthomas (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil prices outdated

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

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

Economic Impact

The article writes; "Economic analysts posit that ultimately, the catastrophe will improve Japan's economy, with increased job availability during restoration efforts."

This is stark raving mad. What has happened is the destruction of a certain amount of wealth, in the form of trains, buildings, people, business not conducted due to disruption, etc. The total capital stock of the economy has been reduced. This may temporarily create areas in which it is possible to make a better-than-usual return on investment, but this is *only* because of the initial destruction of wealth.

The total wealth created each year depends on the rate of growth and the total invested capital. If the total invested capital had remained the same (no earthquake), Japan would have been better off than what has happened; the total wealth with the earthquake is less than the total wealth without.

Frankly, it should be bloody obvious from first principles that the destruction of tens of billions of dollars worth of wealth is not going to improve the economy. If it was, why aren't people going around destroying wealth all the time? Toby Douglass (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no economic expert, but everything quoted in that paragraph is, as far as I can tell, supported in the cited source, which is from a reputable newspaper. The arguments within seem to make sense, I don't think I can see any reason at this time why the information should be removed from the article. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 10:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor Containment

At 2011 Sendai_earthquake and tsunami#Fukushima I and I it states;

"Pictures broadcast on Japanese television showed that the outer structure of reactor number 1's containment building had blown off".

The cited source actually says "the outer structure of the building that houses the reactor appeared to have blown off" (my italics)
I strongly doubt that the containment building has been 'breached'. I think we should wait for more reliable sources. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - updated the article to more closely match the source's wording ("showed" -> "appeared to show"). If any other sources show up to contradict this I'll be happy to make further changes or get rid of the claim entirely. (You're lucky you're an IP in a way, you don't have to deal with the mountain of edit conflicts... I've been trying to make this edit for about 10 minutes now, grumble grumble) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 10:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated again with BBC News source (specifically "Japan's NHK TV showed before and after pictures of the plant. They appeared to show that the outer structure of one of four buildings at the plant had collapsed after the explosion"), updated prose in article accordingly. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 11:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The containment building seems to be gone, but the reactor itself is in a thick steel containment vessel, and the authorities have issued a statement that the BBC read out that seems to say that that is undamaged.Rememberway (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Don't bet on the edit conflicts. It happens on unprotected articles too! (I think it was here pre-protection actually). A 'Fukushima I disaster' article was actually started, (still exists!). Good re-write too, NPOV, no COI or SOAP. ;-) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, gotta try to do it first-time around with an article that's being updated this quickly :) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 11:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, hope its all a moot point by morning! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be very wary of the BBC as a realiable source in this case: their articles are being very anti-nuclear sensationalist and they appear to be in the minority in describing the blast as "huge". I question if the sentence in this article echoing that claim is well-founded.LionsPhil (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone started a wikinews article wikinews: Explosion at earthquake damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant -- it's still under construction. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Added news box in relevant section. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 11:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Explosion is on the Main Page actually! Hope it turns out to be a trifling incident. :-/ - 220.101 talk^\Contribs12:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI Interesting related discussion at Talk:Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Meltdown_2 - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Timezone in infobox

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

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

An intresting tabe

I dug up these tsunami serverity facts for you.--Wipsenade (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Other regions affected

Region	Evacuation	Tsunami alert	Tsunami height	Casualties	Sources
Taiwan	Yes	Yes	10 cm (3.9 in)	0
Guam, USA	Yes	Yes	40 cm (16 in)	0
Northern Mariana	Yes	Yes	40 cm (16 in)	0
Kamchatka	No	No	0 cm (0 in)	0	http://www.upstreamonline.com/incoming/article248376.ece</ref>
Sakhalin Island's of shore rigs	Un­known	Un­known	0 cm (0 in)	0	http://www.upstreamonline.com/incoming/article248376.ece</ref>
Crescent City, California,USA	Yes	Yes	6.5 ft (2.0 m)	1
Morro Bay, California,USA	Yes	Yes	6 ft (1.8 m)	0
Santa Cruz Bay, California,USA	Yes	Yes	Un­known	4
Hawaii (most places), USA	Yes	Yes	2.1 m (6.9 ft)	0
Philippines (most places)	Yes	Yes	1 m (3.3 ft)	0
North Maluku, Philippines	Yes	Yes	10 cm (3.9 in)	0
Palau (some parts)	Yes	Yes	11 cm (4.3 in)	0
Tuvalu's Nanumea island	Yes	Yes	"Two small waves"	0
Indonesia's North Sulawesi and Maluku islands	Yes	Yes	10 cm (3.9 in)	0
Russia's Sea of Okhotsk's coastline	Un­known	Un­known	3.3 m (11 ft)	0
Russia’s Kuril Islands	Yes	Yes	3.3 m (11 ft)	0
Midway Island, USA	No (uninhabited)	No (uninhabited)	1.5 m (4.9 ft)	0
Maui, Hawaii, USA	Yes	Yes	2.1 m (6.9 ft)	0
Shemya, Alaska, USA	Yes	Yes	1.5 m (4.9 ft)	0
Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA	Yes	Yes	1.5 m (4.9 ft)	0
Kona coast of the Big Island, Hawaii, USA	Yes	Yes	3.7 m (12 ft)	0
Wake Island, Hawaii, USA	Yes	Yes	1.8 m (5.9 ft)	0
California (most costal places), USA	Yes	Yes	2 m (6.6 ft)	0
Pacific coast of Mexico	Un­known	Yes	70 cm (2.3 ft)	0
Sakhalin Island	Yes	Yes	0 cm (0 in)	0

--Wipsenade (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of effort to show that, well, basically nothing happened other than one death already reported in the article. The claim of deaths in Santa Cruz appears to have been redacted. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree, this is overkill in my opinion: why, for example, are four sources needed to say that there were no casualties and 0cm-high waves at Sakhalin Island? Some information in this table could be usefully used, but the majority is unnecessary. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 12:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, but honestly a lot of this is outdated/redundant. The table was purged from the article a while ago (see other talk page comments above.) To give one example, what's the rationale behind listing locations that had no tsunami warnings/evacuations and no waves reported? Or places with 10cm waves where nothing happened? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could it be a media hoax attached to the real earthquake news? It would push up web page hits if people thought there was one and with Tuvalu being so flat...Wipsenade (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NHK stream in English

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

Current event tag should be removed ???? It's over !

We need to edit this article, to put the aftermath section and the accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priapeace (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

With 700 missing people, it's hardly "over". WWGB (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, even the tectonic activity is not necessarily over. And this is not a tectonic article, incorporating, as you mention, the aftermath. And certainly, though I have little time for that tag, "information is changing rapidly." Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

So, all missing folks have been accounted for, all damage has been repaired, and there will be no further aftershocks? That was amazingly fast! :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Minamisanriku

According to danish media this town: Minamisanriku is missing as much as 10,000 people -about half the population. I have no english reference. [11] --Thorseth (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now getting a lot of traction around the world. [12] WWGB (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

fire at oil refinerary at sendai

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

Number of missing

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

And here, CNN quoting (I think it was Kyodo News, but read for yourself), it uses 9500 instead of 10000, and calls them "unaccounted for" which seems to be being distinguished from "missing". --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio images

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

Charities

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

International Responses

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

Updated casualties at OVER 9,000!

According to Channel NewsAsia, the death toll currently stands at OVER 9,000, with 10,000 uncounted for. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordThrall (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Containment Building vs. Containment Vessel

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

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