This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Earthquakes B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Japan B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 08:35, May 29, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Disaster management B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Oceans B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Oceans To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus) Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus) Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia Oregon B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

I would exclude the current sentence "Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger, in remarks to the European Parliament on 15 March, called the nuclear disaster an "apocalypse", saying that the word was particularly well chosen, and that Tokyo had almost lost control of events at the Fukushima power plant.[136]" It may be true (whatever it really means?) but he is a European politician, not a scientist, and not a nuclear energy specialist, making a very vague characterization (apocalypse) that is not informative and has no more validity than characterizations by many others. It smacks of a possible political bias and belongs in the separate article 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, where it can be paced in context with facts and other characterizations. Personally, i'd drop it entirely as being uninformative and possibly political.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another new article... 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents

184.144.160.156 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not as relevant to this article as the article on the Fukushima I Plant, in my opinion, so I don't think we need to. –flodded ☃ (gripe) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The article 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, which is identified as a main article at 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Nuclear power plants, is a redirect to 2011 Japanese nuclear incidents, which is only a short list. I propose that 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Nuclear power plants should be summarized to the level of detail of the other damage in this section, and the bulk of the information put in 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents so it is not merely a redirect. Obankston (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect, because someone renamed the page after this was posted here. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notably absent in this 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami is the looting or civil unrest which occurred in the immediate aftermath of several recent natural disasters of the similar scale, such as 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, and 2005 Katrina hurricane/flooding in New Orleans. I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.38.71 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two quotes added, but I don't know where to put them or how to title them. I bet someone else can fix this. Thanks for your thoughts, 70.244.38.71. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might depend on your definition of 'looting'. On the scene Aussie TV reports showed people(presumably survivors) gathering cans and small 'kegs' of beer at one place and packets(cans?) of food at another. This is not 'looting' as per stealing electrical goods, jewelry, money or other valuables non-essential for survival which drink and food certainly are, and these were some of the worst hit areas. I believe that theft is looked on with far more disdain In Japan than in the 'west'. Japanese would simply be far less likely to take anything non-essential, and even then I think they would likely be extremely ashamed to have to do so to eat. Basically societal differences. Nb. Definition at Looting: "indiscriminate taking of goods by force as part of a military or political victory, or during a catastrophe or riot, such as during war, natural disaster, or rioting." And at Wicktionary. This link and this one on the subject may be of interest. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, from what I've seen and know of Japanese society (so obviously a real reference would trump my anecdotal account), what you described would be their version of "looting." If it was more widely reported, a mention of some small-scale looting might be appropriate, but I haven't seen it reported like in the other places mentioned since it's not nearly as extreme as those cases. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Page Moved again while I was responding!) Can't claim to be expert, but maybe a long term interest in Japanese culture (w/o formal studies). Some discussion in the links I gave above referred to Cyclone Katrina, & we have heard what a 'cock-up'(wikt:cock-up) the response to that was. A person without food/water in a disaster event is, IMHO, perfectly justified (morally) in taking what they need, especially if it is just lying around and will likely just be scooped up and dumped during 'clean-up'. The 'legal'/law/Police view may be rather different of course. Indeed the people may have in fact been gathering any undamaged items to return them to their owners! (The reporters didn't speak to them so just my speculation/opinion) I can well imagine that if people had to take food, that they will eventually, if they can locate the former owners, insist on paying for what they took (probably with abject apologies for their 'shameful' behaviour!). I don't think we are likely to see any 'civil unrest' (though even Japanese are capable of it),^{[citation needed]} unless the situation becomes dramatically worse.- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to a report on National Public Radio this afternoon which, among other things, noted that none of Japan's famous vending machines had been looted whatsoever. The citation I leave as an exercise to the reader. kencf0618 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really that notable, as many of the vending machines contain an emergency mode that can be activated which in turn puts them in to free drink mode. It would be rather counterproductive to attempt to break one open when simply peeling back a sticker and pulling a lever will do. - Paul Mundt (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the user who has added the section, Response of Japanese citizens, citing lack of looting or civil unrest in the aftermath. I initially suggested including a mention of this notable non-event. But I'm unable to do it myself now that the article is restricted to editing by established registered users only.

Feel free to add this one more quote to the section. This is on-the-ground observation by several professional reporters who contributed to an Associated Press article, and presumably offers more credibility. "Four days on, there is little of the public anger and frustration that so often bursts forth in other countries. ... Amid the chaos, foreign journalists have remarked on the polite demeanor, the lack of anger, the little if any looting or profiteering that seems to characterize disasters elsewhere." -- Alabaster, Jay, and Olsen, Kelly (March 15, 2011). "Tsunami tests Japan's resilient spirit". Breitbart.com. Retrieved March 16, 2011. -- By PL 70.248.184.55 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Guardian report actually mentions some theft, break-ins and profiteering.
"After Japan's quake and tsunami, freezing weather threatens relief". The Guardian, 16 March 2011 retrieved, 17 March 2011- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there're some theft or break-ins. But they don't amount to widespread looting. I've changed the discussion section title without the word "absence", which does connotate zero amount. Also the once new article section, Response of Japanese citizens, was properly titled, and should be kept, though it need expansion and tremendous improvement. Don't know why it's been removed. Seems odd that the main article includes the responses of a wide variety of countries and institutions, but those of the victims/survivors themselves are excluded. Please explain. -- 70.244.34.140 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See section 2011 T.e.a.t.(!) — Response of Japanese citizens. I believe that this entire section has been removed previously, and then reinstated. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is too long and needs to be better summarized. We already have a separate article (two, actually) to go into all the details. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote from Oettinger in the introductory section. Does this add any substance? Oettinger's training is in law, not in science or technology. Furthermore, he is a common bureaucrat, not an expert analyst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.132.182 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest adding a section on earthquake magnitude at Fukishima, which was apparently 6.8 and i woud add a section on damage at Fukishima 2 Daiini which went unstable but is back in control now.--Patbahn (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kesennuma Line runs along the coast through some of the worst hit areas and should be included. There have been many media images of trains washed off the line by the tsunami. But I cannot find any specific English language references to the line being part of the affected infrastructure. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I have added a sentence about this. Goodvac (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a slightly different understanding of that source. I've started a discussion on the Kesennuma Line talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for other industries ? Also, considering the large portion of trade between Japan and Australia, New Zealand, might there also be economic impact on country x articles? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's workforce is prodominantly made up of those in the third-level (services) economic sector, and not so much first and second-level (agriculture, manufacture) sectors. It's already been mentioned that various steel companies, manufacturers such as Toshiba are affected, however since most of Japan's workforce is in the services sector, I was thinking along the lines of software development, business and enterprise, banking/insurance, et cetera. I don't know too much regarding those fields though, so I can't help you. Somewhat related to the impact on Japan's videogame industry is the anime/manga industry, although I'm not sure if such a topic is notable enough for its own article. (Haven't been paying attention to what's going on within 2channel and futaba, but /a/ got incredibly upset that their favourite anime was no longer airing due to delays... not really worth mentioning at all on Wikipedia) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The auto industry and electronics industry would seem to industries that might be useful to have articles with the impact on them. Er... I haven't paid attention to 4chan/futaba/2ch/dvach in years. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan, eh? Nothing too special, you haven't missed much. /a/'s upset on the anime delays (haven't I seen this before...), /jp/'s complaining that their figurines aren't shipping, /b/ and /int/ is full of the usual trolling, and /sci/ gets nuclear threads all day 'erry day.
Well, you could begin a new, separate article which focuses on the auto and electronics industries, provided you've found all your sources and all that. Also, I would recommend creating a user account; it might be difficult creating a new article as an IP, I assume. If you have queries on Wikipedia policies, et cetera, feel free to contact me on my user talkpage, and I'll be glad to help out. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"should there also be one for other industries?" That's a basically a question of notability, which is a GNG question. FWIW, Here's some non-RS mentions of plant closings in the camera manufacturing world. Links to more reliable but primary sources within. I'd want to see that the specific "effects of the earthquake on the X sector" had enough coverage to establish notability. I'd *guess* "yes" for manufacturing in general, *no* for photographic equipment manufacturing (but I might be wrong). --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as to yes for manufacturing in general, no for photographic-related manufacturing. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the electronics manufacturing industry in quake/tsunami affected areas, this link may be of interest. Suitable for reference on economic effects perhaps. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on God's green earth is this supposed to mean, from the infobox? Fortunately, it was gone by the time I tried to edit it out. Human beings are not robots; they aren't "disassembled." Moncrief (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some anon IP keeps trying to insert this - evidently they have a limited grasp of English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least people are watching the page, as almost every revert I've tried has resulted in a conflict with someone else already reverting! It looks like someone requested semi-protection for this page already, too, so that should hopefully fix the problem. I suppose, technically, the earthquake DID "disassemble" human beings...very technically. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a problem with English comprehension. "Total damage" refers here quite obviously to environmental, structural, and non-human damage. The specific and ever-updated number of reported deaths and injuries is just below in the same infobox. Frustrating that the anon can't quite grasp this. Moncrief (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that the IP was foreign and that they had just used Google Translate or something, but they kept on reverting... BurtAlert (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses appear to be in a US-based T-Mobile block, so it's more likely vandalism than someone who just has a poor grasp of English. (Well, perhaps the person has a poor grasp of English as well, even if it's his or her native language.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, apparently now human beings are being brutally disassembled! How does one request an IP range block? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is just possible the IP meant 'displaced' - though vandalism looks more likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to AGF, but with the sheer number of reverts along with it being a US-based block, etc, I can't see this being anything but vandalism. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how does one add the appropriate lockbox icon to the page? It wasn't added when protecting, and I thought adding a protected template would accomplish that as well...but it doesn't. Someone please clue me in and/or add the proper semi-protected lockbox. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? {{pp-semi|small=yes}} ? Moondyne (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be it; added, thanks. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, he hit the injured and missing template pages as well to update them to instead list the number of partially disassembled and possibly disassembled human beings. (The dead template is semi-protected, but I assume those would be "fully disassembled" if it could be edited by IP users.) Reverted, but anyone watching for vandalism might want to watch those as well since the edits were around for 15+ minutes before I noticed them included on the main page. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 00:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request on WP:ANI to block the IP block that's been doing this. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 00:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is going on its now in the current event shoutbox. Is this hacking? 79.103.123.250 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just reverted that too. No "hacking," just an idiot vandalizing pages. Noted on the WP:ANI request that that was vandalized too. Vandal seems to really want to make sure people know that humans were disassembled! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template. Is it possible to protect a template from IP and novice users? I've never heard of this kind of issue before. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, they are part of the discussion and part of the history of this conversation. They are also part of why this user was blocked, specifically being linked to from WP:ANI to demonstrate this user's poor faith edits. They are not on the article, they're on the talk page, and should absolutely not be removed. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree all you want, but they're in the talk page history. Since it's a talk page, removing offensive content is no problemo. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the offensive content from the talk page; it was linked to from WP:ANI as noted and is part of why this vandal was banned. Does anyone else concur with restoring it? I won't change things either way unless someone speaks up. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the reasoning behind retaining it, but frankly there are more important issues, and why leave vandal-droppings about? If anyone is interested, they can look in the page history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins blocked 208.54.87.0/24 for us for 55 hours. Hopefully that will solve the problem, and the vandal will get bored and give up... (One troll-like being was disassembled in this unnecessary discussion.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to give any validity to the weirdness of this vandal, but perhaps the "Casualities" section of the infobox might be better placed before the "Total damage" section. That order would correspond to the usual human conception of any disaster (loss of human life is more relevant and important than types of physical damage), and may prevent the kind of confusion evidenced here (assuming, which in all likelihood it is, this wasn't pure vandalism from the start). I'm not heavily invested in this idea.... it's just a thought. If the disaster infobox template is always set up a certain way (the way it is here), so be it. Moncrief (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible enough - the template does seem to be rather badly laid out. I'd change the 'total damage' section to read 'physical damage' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some of that stuff could use shuffling. "Total Disassemblies"...er, "Casualties", ought to either be moved right below or right above "Total Damage", and I agree that should be renamed too...maybe just to "Damage"? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 04:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order and naming seem to be fixed in the template, btw (tried moving casualties up and previewing, and it still ends up last.) So I guess we'd have to fork a new one. That'd kinda go against keeping in line with previous earthquakes...but it still does seem wrong that peak acceleration and stuff like that are listed before casualties, based on what information people will want to know first and what's most important. Maybe changing the template isn't a horrible thing if needed. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The T-Mobile vandal struck the template this time {{2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami}}. I've given a level-3 vandal warning. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently {{2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead}} as well... (more "disassembled" crap) 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to resolve this question in the German article for a couple of days but I wasn't able to find any infos on this: According to the JMA tsunami warnings archive the initial JMA warning concerning a major tsunami went out within four minutes after the quake. However, is there evidence wether the public was warned by P/A, SMS, and/or sirenes, and, maybe more interesting, when this was done? --Matthiasb (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to assume that they were warned by a variety of methods, and thus be very general and just refer to that. Unless we see reports about some particular warning method failing, which we haven't, then I don't see why you'd need to report on how the warning was issued, just that it was issued (and note "by a variety of methods" or whatever if you do want to get into that detail.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article in the UK The Evening Standard (London newspaper) where a UK banker working in Tokyo described how after the earthquake he and his colleagues had made it outside their building and really loud sirens went off and he started to get worried because he noticed even the earthquake-hardened locals started to look scared at that point. I presume those were tsunami warnings. I'll try and find it. The Evening Standard also has some good (though harrowing) accounts from reporters who have visited the devastated areas. To be honest, there is a lot more being reported in the media than is in our article. This is partly because it takes time for the huge amount of news coverage to be assimilated, and partly because not everything reported needs to be here. But certainly there is scope for much more than we currently have. I read things every day in newspapers which are not in this article. I would add them myself, but as I said, it takes time to do properly and get the balance right. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An English language reference has been replaced with Japanese language reference, and crucial information has been deleted from the article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&diff=419136398&oldid=419135545

Please desist immediately! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased provide actual evidence immediately! Like some that actually proves the later sources are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please the the diff above - English language source that said "Tokyo" was deleted, and was changed to "Saitama" with Japanese language reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saitama seems to be a Tokyo suburb. The edit was made by a long-term contributor to Wikipedia. I suggest you (a) revert to the version written by someone who knows what they are talking about, (b) apologise, and (c) take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source (Reuters) says Tokyo, not Saitama. The reference was deleted, and the text was changed so that it no longer corresponded to the reference. Then a non-English language reference was substituted, which can only be verified by people who can read Japanese. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Non-English_sources Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Reuters a more reliable source than whatever Japanese-language source was provided? Do you have translated information from the Japanese source showing that we're using wrong information? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with Japanese language references? This disaster happened in Japan, last I checked, so many of the most current references will be in Japanese. The editor who made the contribution you note speaks Japanese, and thus provides us with the valuable ability to have Japanese-language references and information included in this English-language article. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy cited above. This is English language Wikipedia, so English language references are preferred. Do you have reason to believe the English language source is incorrect? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate." We're using Japanese sources when they have newer and more complete information than English sources. In those cases, the English-langage sources are NOT of equal caliber and content, so the policy certainly allows us to use non-English language sources in preference there. Edit: Note that the policy doesn't even say they need to exceed the caliber and content of English-language sources, just that they need to be of equal caliber; so we actually go beyond that with many of these Japanese sources. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostofnemo, please see WP:NPA. You have chosen to cast aspersions on a long term Japanese contributor, on the talk page of an article about a major disaster in Japan, in order to promote the wild accusations of censorship you promote on your user page [1]. This is offensive, and merits an apology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is better information? No translation has been provided. At best we have two conflicting sources. Reuters is a rather reliable source, so it would take something rather convincing to prove they are in error. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned any editors by name here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the 'conflict'? The two versions say much the same thing, except that the Japanese one is more specific. There is no evidence at all of "news management", except in your imagination. Apologise, or troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what the Japanese source says. If you speak Japanese, perhaps you could provide a translation here, as the policy suggests. But why delete the English language source and delete the word "Tokyo"? If there is no conflict, we should use the source that Wikipedia policy says is preferable, which is the English language source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, but it's ok to call me a troll? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit your talk page comments after others have commented on them [2]: "Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." (WP:REDACT). If you don't know what the Japanese source says, why did you suggest it was evidence of "news management"? Actually, don't bother to answer, this is a waste of time. And yes, you are a troll. Your only reason to start this section was to push your conspiracy claptrap. This is trolling - of the worst kind in a context like this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to use Google Translate or another method to point out blatantly mistranslated information. We ASSUME it to be better information by assuming good faith on the part of a long-time Wikipedia editor who has been contributing Japanese links and verifying the validity of them. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's against Wikipedia policy to replace apparently good English sources with foreign language sources. How does the Japanese source differ from the Reuters report? Does the word "Tokyo" really need to be deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's against Wikipedia policy to replace apparently good English sources with lesser quality foreign language sources. You have not shown this to be the case, other than stating or avoiding the issue of not being able to translate the source. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my redactions, YOU complained I was being accusatory, so I toned them down. They took away the "strike out" characters, so I don't know how else to retract the comments. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to change the section title, unless you want re-elevate the drama level. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A case has to be made that the Reuters information is in error or out of date. No one has made that case. Where is your translation? The policy says to post it here. I think "in Saitama" and "around Tokyo" are the same. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there agreement that when Reuters states around Tokyo, they are refering to the readings in Saitama? If that is so I think we should use the most specific source. However we should specify near Tokyo or similar, because most non-japanese readers will not necesarrily know where Saitama is. However is it Saitama city or Saitama prefecture that the japanse source refers to? Taemyr (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found two en ref. supporting my edit, and I am restoring it. See [3] and [4]. I think there will be no problem about this matter. Sorry that I took long to find en citation. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Japan Times reference says the radiation level reached 20 times the normal level in Tokyo. I've added that to your edit, because I think it's notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't have to remove the detail at this edit. You must remember your first edit was totally wrong and I just corrected it. Oda Mari (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason to remove the word "Tokyo". English sources and the Japanese source all mentioned the radiation level in Tokyo. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was edited, I don't think the new version catches the eye nearly as well as the old version. I prefer the old version, since it stands out much better. I think the new one is just too small and nondescript compared to the city circles for Sendai and Tokyo, for one. Any opinions on reverting? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 2010 Chilean earthquake, 2010 Haiti earthquake, and 2011 Christchurch earthquake all use larger bullseyes of the older variant in their infoboxes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami doesn't use a map at all in the infobox, but the first map it does use has a bullseye with concentric circles like the old version. Thus, I believe it's reasonable to revert this if nobody objects. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the earthquake wasn't that localised, and the 'bullseye' (or 'ripples on a pond', which is probably a better analogy) image actually helps visualisation of its effects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this somewhat speedily because I felt the new version simply wasn't a good visualization on what's a currently very popular article, and we'd had the old one for quite a while with no debate...feel free to continue discussion if anyone wants to comment on the merits of the other smaller marker. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is the old one, I have no problems. Its just taste I suppose. I do note that the German Wikipedia uses File:Quake pointer.svg on all its earthquake articles. Moondyne (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer the concentric rings as well, but regardless of our aesthetic sensibilities the quick revert was probably the right thing to do. For better or worse, the rings seem to be the de facto standard on English Wikipedia for now. Someone even tried to streamline the the whole thing by uploading a "bull's eye" graphic (is it really needed though?). Perhaps we need to start a discussion over at WikiProject Earthquakes? Would all of you folks care to participate?-- 76.121.180.74 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bullseye1.png is what we use, and makes a lot of sense because it's just overlaid over a generic map. So, it is needed, since it lets us avoid making a custom map for something like this. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We never had more than implied consensus, just that nobody ever changed it from the very early versions of the page. I went by that and the other quake pages on the English Wikipedia. I guess German speakers don't need things pointed out to them with large red circles quite as badly as us English speakers do. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the old version looks better because with multiple rings, you can feel the earthquake away from the epicenter or focus. Just like a real earthquake, you can still feels the effects miles away from the epicenter or focus.

As a German WP editor who was involved in the creation of the e/q infobox in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. At the timme there was a short discussion on the question which dot to use. We found the standard dot used in positions maps to small but had however doubts to make it very large as it might imply that the size of the dot might inidcate the size of the magnitude and/or the area which was affected and areas aside were not. I don't remember the discussion exactly but the outcome was to use Quake pointer.svg which is included in the infobox itself (therefor all article with an infobox make use of that dot, but not yet all e/q article do have infoboxes) because of the dot actually marks only the position of the epicentre. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Daily Yomiuri states that the city of Kuji has been essentially erased by the tsunami, I urge you to verify through additional sources, as I have received word from local residents that although badly damaged, Kuji is still standing. I believe you should be referencing the village of Noda, which is directly to the south of Kuji. It is this settlement that has been largely erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banter82 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments. As you will appreciate, it is sometimes difficult to ensure complete accuracy in a situation like this, so inevitably corrections will be required. If you have links to any sources yourself that can confirm this, it would be most helpful to provide them, but I'm sure that as further information becomes available this will be rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either in same section or a sub section, or at least presented consecutively--Tallard (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} not only tohoku,but also kanto region.So, this is Tohoku Kanto earthquake and tsunami.And there are 3 seismic centers include Ibaraki. 125.55.193.127 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This would suggest moving the page if I understand you correctly. There have already been multiple (much longer) discussions on what the article should be named; the other regions you mention are of course mentioned in the article body. Please clarify your request if I'm misunderstanding you. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia policy to only limit this to a scientific type article only? I added some predictions related materials. This is being heavily discussed by areas near Japan at the moment. User Flodded first marked it as vandalism. Then marked it a second time as non-scientific. Would it not be good to further expand on Japanese prophecies as well as materials from other cultures? Benjwong (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is that of a neutral point of view, so one's belief or disbelief in such material should not come into account. I am not against having a short, focussed section on prophecies. AugustinMa (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in finding WP:V & WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask enough fortune cookies/future tellers and somebody's vague prediction will become true. -Koppapa (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Profecies are really a problem. They are never able to fix, individual, time, location and name at the same time; mankind is always free. John Leary told an evacuation in East Asia. But the Pacific Ring of Fire has a cycle, with Sumatra 2004 and Chile 2010 were seems to be a chain reaction now. You can assume anything, arithmetics, profecy or even that profecy is arithmetics. I tend to assume that good profecy is just prognosis of a good engineer, but then, God's Spirit is a Good Engineer.

August 2, 2008: “My people, this massive evacuation of people will be from a natural disaster that will happen along the Asian Pacific Rim of fire. The many people in the vision left walking because the roads were too clogged with vehicles that were deadlocked. There will be a combination of earthquakes and volcanoes on the east coast of Asia that will trigger a fear of evacuations. Many will have their lives saved by this immediate leaving. The damage from this event will affect the economies in this area, and it is a sign for coming major earthquake events on the West coast of America on the eastern Pacific Rim along North America. When these events are finished, there will be some major changes in geography all around the Pacific Rim of fire. You have been seeing increasing activity in these areas as a forewarning of these events to come...” johnleary.com --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for initially assuming vandalism rather than assuming good faith; it honestly seemed like vandalism to me. However, I still absolutely do not believe that this information belongs in this article. The very nature of these types of predictions makes them incompatible with scientific discussion. If there were wide media reports about some specific prophecy, that might be worthy of a mention (of the reports, that is), but in this case your prophecy is from some author in Hong Kong, not even Japan (I point that out to rebut your point about it being "heavily discussed"), and I haven't seen any media reports of Japanese people widely thinking some prophecy has come to pass or anything like that. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The very nature of these types of predictions makes them incompatible with scientific discussion." Disagree: in fact, scientific is one and one is two, profecy is one and one is two, media hype "scientific discussion" is one and one isn't two :( --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy is "one and one is whatever we interpret it to be that people might believe." Media hype can certainly be the same, which is why we try to be careful about using reliable sources, etc. For one, whether or not this is a prophecy, I do not think the provided source can be stated as reliable. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we always end up in a discussion God exists/ God doesn't exist. About the source, the author in Hong Kon I don't know, johnleary.com I do know many years now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that predictions should be included but it is notable that in 2007 Satake et al. [5] said that a repeat of the 869 earthquake and tsunami was 99% probable over the next 30 years. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prophecy, so the rest of this section isn't even relevant... I agree that bit of research should be included, especially since we already have information about what scientists expected from the fault line, how the quake was similar to the 869 quake, etc. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close. Disagree: there are good predictions by probability, statics, kinetics etc.; there is good prophecy (Nostradamus [6]), there is "profecy" by good networking and inside information (Oracle of Delphi) and there is false prophecy corrupted by despotism. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14650 - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From? We are going by the official figures that are being updated several times a day by the Japanese National Police Agency. The PDFs these come from are linked as references. The article does note that actual casualties may be much higher than reported numbers. As far as the numbers, I don't see why we'd switch from using the official counts for most purposes. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if you don't say how long it was, the information is not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.68.162 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the article should present this, but I read many many web pages of shelters which have no food. I also read many web pages of rescue teams from UK, USA, etc, but few information about Japanese teams and efforts.

Tokyo is the largest most modern city in the world, and only a couple of hundred km away, people should have better resources in shelters???????????? There should be no one without food with Tokyo so close. Something is amiss with catastrophe management, but I cannot find best article to represent. The situation reminds me of the horrible USA government management when hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans. I think lack of Government Japanese response should have a section, something like this: Hurricane Katrina#Criticism of government response--Tallard (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems to me too that the first ten hours of Fukushima got lost :( --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It reported to be the "most powerful known earthquake to hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world overall since modern record-keeping began in 1900". Dozens(?) of towns very badly damaged or simply "swept away", hundreds of kilometres of coastline flooded. Add the nuclear plant problems & "336,521 people .....displaced from their homes". Perhaps it is simply too big an event to be dealt with easily, even by (likely) the nation best prepared for such an event? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priority was and is Fukushima. They could have done better. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not seeing reasonable critical analysis in reliable sources at this time and I don't think we should have a section on it. Critical commentary seems to be based on an ignorance of what a government can reasonably be expected to do in this time scale. I am not surprised that Tallard has read few reports of Japanese rescue teams - did he/she check Japanese language sources? Obviously Western media will report on Western rescue teams.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first 36 hours after the quake, a majority of what I was seeing was Japanese, translated. I don't speak any Japanese, but I liked seeing the Japanese media translated, I'm seeing very little of that in the media anymore, no matter how hard I try. I can agree with Chris, nuclear had to be a priority. But on the topic of life in shelters, when the largest city in the world sits 200km away, it should be incredibly easy to bring better supplies than what is happening, people in shelters are hungry and cold, according to dozens of articles. Also, with 30 million people 200km away, I would have expected vast numbers of Japanese rescuers, not only military and police. Granted, this was bigger than anyone was prepared for, or could have been planned for. But the sheer number of very close masses of humans should have made for easier/quicker handling, even without a good plan. How long do people need to go hungry and cold before we realise there's something fishy here. I don't know the historical process of how the Katrina response criticism section came about, I have no doubt is was not an easy process!--Tallard (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this article for one, stating ""They are leaving us to die," says the mayor of Minamasoma inside the exclusion zone" and "Japanese media have became more critical of Prime Minister Naoto Kan's handling of the disaster, and have accused both the government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co of failing to provide enough information on the incident." Now, I agree that speculation based on the initial arguments wouldn't be sufficient to add a section, but we do seem to have verifiable reports. Can any Japanese folks confirm whether the media and people there are acting like the BBC is reporting? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And has the Japanese Wiki page began dealing with this?--Tallard (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because gamma rays are a strong signature of uncovered fuel rods, and because there is at least one satellite with capacity to sense gamma rays (http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2009JA014502.shtml), someone with access should ask whether there is data on gamma's near the plant. I am not an expert in gamma absorption in atmosphere, but I would think line-of-sight would be a limit. I would also expect an isotropic decay from a fuel rod, so that gamma's should be detectable through holes in the structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardis miles (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Spelling error in the See Also section "Related to Tōhoku eartquake" heading earthquake mispelled

and

Capitalization needed in Response section Under Media Coverage heading "internet" should be capitalized Mile19 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Goodvac (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a list of affected towns/districts? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any such list would be massive, and not appropriate for this main article due to that. We do point out the affected regions, and the more notable cities. I do think that we could perhaps do a better job of pointing out the hardest hit regions, though. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect it to be in this article. I think a list of towns, with columns for earthquake, tsunami, deaths, would be useful. For instance, a CNN reporter just said that Sendai did not get tsunami - but looking at the map I am not sure about that. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most detailed information along those lines that I'm aware of that's readily available would be the Japanese National Police Agency report, which breaks down injuries/missing people/property damage/etc by prefecture. English version; Japanese version (may be more current.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link - first mention I have seen of damage on Hokkaido which our article doesn't have either. (It made me download Japanese fonts to display only the English version though.) Can someone explain why the districts are arranged in 5 groups in the Japanese version but one big list in the English. What detail are we missing in the translation? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those groups appear to be geographical regions or something along those lines. You can use Google Translate to translate them. You're best off doing individual chunks of text rather than the whole thing, since it chokes somewhat on the PDF formatting. (Note that for vertical text, you may want to copy and paste individual letters so they're horizontal, making sure there are no spaces between the characters. On OS X you can option-drag to select an arbitrary rectangular region of text spanning multiple lines, not sure if Windoze provides similar functionality.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the IP comment above (75.41.110.200), our article does indirectly mention Hokkaido, in that the bit on tsunami maxima that I added includes Erimo, Hokkaido which is on the southernmost cape of Hokkaido (see Cape Erimo). But I was unable to find more in the Western media about the surge of several metres (3.5 m) that was recorded there. It is purely speculation on my part, but possibly there are cliffs there that protected some of that area, though any areas exposed to the sea (i.e. any area within a few metres of sea level and on the coast) would have seen a damaging surge from the tsunami. However, I don't know where the JMA recording station in that location is in relation to the city of Erimo. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ (75.41.110.200). I agree we need some sort of list of places affected, in a separate article. The nuclear reactor section now offers a link to a list of nuclear related articles, the same approach can be used for a locality listing. Numbers are jumping all over the place between local data and national data. Separating them would be advantageous. As time passes, different localities will achieve different rates of response and the article should reflect that.--Tallard (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a resident of Wakuya (Miyagi Prefecture) and am fairly confident that the image labeled "SAR activities are visible amongst the remains of Wakuya" does not in fact depict Wakuya. While we are relatively close to majorly affected areas, our town did not experience the tsunami and most structures have little damage. If, in fact, this picture depicts another town named Wakuya, please redirect the link included in the image label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.91.70.162 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It is good news to hear that most structures were not damaged where you live. The photo was taken by the US Navy who says it is Wakuya. Normally I would guess that they do things with 100% accuracy, but perhaps this one was a mixup. The caption has been changed. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicommons has a large number of images now. Some of them are better than the ones currently used in this article (in my opinion). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to point out specific images and where you think they should go and such! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put content UNDER the sourced Asian Disaster Center sentence. I have no problem putting it elsewhere but as per the ! comment it would be nice to move it somewhere in mainspace rather than deleting it. Where else does this article point to definitive satellite and numerical data which is updated constantly? It seems that to simply delete that material without re-placing it elsewhere amounts to a vandalization. OK, let's just say, "data destruction"- an all too common wikipedia activity often done for wikilawyer reasons by people with little if any interest in or expertise in the underlying topic. Nor compassion for the people who need up to date information. Since there is no indication of WHERE the deletor thinks the material belongs, I will try placing it elsewhere but I can't stay at this article and mount a 24 hour anti-deletion/anti-vandalism watch.

The material in question: The Asian Disaster Reduction Center has assigned the a globally unique identifier (GLIDE) number^[1] EQ-2011-000028-JPN,for the Asian Disaster Reduction Center satellite and database. ^[2]

If you don't like where I put it just put it in a more appropriate spot thank you in advance.

Geofferybard (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had perhaps paid more attention to editing the article, and less to making accusations of vandalism, you might well have discovered that this has already been added to the 'Earthquake' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it was way down and it was down like five paragraphs plus a user box template, you might have simply wrote "Moving" in the comment line and there would have been no issue. I thought you deleted it and as stated in the !comment all I asked was that there not be destruction of data. I think there are places in the record where I stated that something "appeared" to be vandalism, or requested non-vandalism, which is not "accusation". Just please make it clear in the comment section what you are doing and a lot of time could be saved.

If you really want to do a mitzvah and are quite up on wikipedistics, maybe you could think up a way to make the link more readily available for a click through, as it is a pretty good resource. Well, never mind. Geofferybard (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the goyim, I don't really go in for mitzvahs, and wikipedistics aren't really my thing. It wasn't actually me that moved the relevant section - I merely observed that you seemed to be intent on reinserting it into the lede when it was already included lower down. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia interface doesn't work very well when multiple editors are working on the same article at the same time, making WP:AGF even more essential. With hindsight, this looks more like cockup than conspiracy, and we'd probably all do well to just learn a lesson, and walk away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I performed at least one of these reverts (tagged as good faith I believe and not as vandalism), I'd thought I'd clarify the reason. It wasn't primarily that the material needed to be moved, it was that the material was added in an unusable state, with broken links and not edited properly. Thus, it basically stood out on the page as a messy blob. It didn't help that it was in the lede, but that wasn't the primary reason I reverted it. Basically,my point was that it's not appropriate to be using this as a place for interim/test edits unnecessarily; for a short blurb, you can compose and test it elsewhere (e.g. in your userspace or a sandbox), and create the non-existent wikilinked article (that was initially present in the blurb) ahead of time as well. This is especially true on an article that's getting a lot of hits and a lot of edits; I think it's common sense that we should strive extra-hard for popular articles to look good to readers if it's not a hassle to do so, and in this case it wouldn't have been a hassle to add the information in a finalized format. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two meter high waves in a Norwegian fjord. The fjord's natural frequency and the waves from this earthquake made standing waves called: seiche. Wondering if this is interesting information for this page? Reference (in Norwegian): VG with video and Sogn Avis Gryphonis (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this isn't relevant enough to include in the article, being a detail about a loosely-linked event happening elsewhere in the world, without casualties/deaths. Definitely belongs on the seiche page I'd say, and it's already there so that's good! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting what I said earlier, which seems to have been missed:

• (1) Could we try and get an accurate value for the distance of the epicentre from the coastline? We have one value of 130 km from Sendai and another of 70 km, which might be referring to the area of coastline closest to the epicentre. It would be best if all references to distance from the coastline were referring to a named point on the coastline.
• (2) The lead says the tsunami took "minutes" to reach the coast, but as far as I can make out this refers to the initial tsunami recordings, not the actual tsunami maximums that caused the damage. I think it would be more accurate to say the tsunami took around 30 minutes to reach the coast (please remember that a tsunami travels fast in deep ocean, but slows in coastal shallows), with other areas hit later (e.g. Sendai over an hour after the earthquake).

I find the article a little confusing about tsunami speed. Deep water tsunamis (ocean floor at earthquake location is 990 m below sea level, depth from Google Earth) can travel as fast as a jet, around 970 km/h^[3] , then slow to 50 km/h in shallow water. Around Sendai, there is 25 km of relatively shallow (30 m) waters, but at Otsuchi and Kamaishi, the ocean floor remains deep until about 8 km out. This I think explains a lot of why it hit so much faster in places which were in fact further away from the epicentre, but it would be nice to see some additional information edited by an expert in tsunamis to help clarify speed and different hit times.--Tallard (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (3) Finally, the fact that the earthquake lasted 5 minutes is still in the infobox but not the article (as far as I can see). This is a notable aspect of the earthquake and should be mentioned in the main text if a good reference for the duration can be found.
• (4) There appears to be nothing yet on whether the tsunamis impacting Japan's coastline were negative or positive waves. From reading this and the video coverage, I would suspect most of the tsunamis in Japan were of the 'initial rise first' sort, but there may be aspects of the phase dynamics to all this that are difficult to put in the article right now if no sources have covered this yet. But it is something to look out for.

I would try and do this myself, but haven't had time yet. I'm hoping others can do this, as I think these are vital aspects of the article that shouldn't be neglected. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially with point 1. I'm going to look for more references here; if the nearest point on Honshu was indeed 70km, I think we should be reporting that number primarily. It seems to me like the primary reason the 130km value came about is because of the original Sendai article title, so information was added in relevant to Sendai. I'll see if I can substantiate that 70km value elsewhere. Also, what is the Japanese media reporting as "location"? (E.g., are they reporting it in x kilometers from y location as we are at all?) As for point 2, I'm not sure how to clarify this properly. The tsunami DID arrive after minutes; like you said, it then took longer for the tsunami maximums to arrive and cause real damage. What time is generally reported? When the water starts receding (if it does), when the initial waves hit, or when the big waves hit? Point 3, earthquake duration, I believe we actually had a reference in the body saying 6 minutes which seems to be gone. The current source is simply "NBC Nightly News" with a date, I'd think at this point we could come up with a better reference and include it in the body. It made more sense to use news refs during the first few days of breaking news (I certainly inserted a bunch of NHK WORLD English live stream refs), but now a lot of that can be replaced with actual articles that the reader can click on... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited duration to 6 minutes and added it to the body as well with new refs; someone provided an updated reference that clearly describes it as being about 6 minutes long. Another thing that I think needs to be cleaned up along with the distance is just how we describe the quake (location, other included data like type and timezone, etc); the lede and the main both both describe it differently, and both have merits to how they describe it so neither one is simply better... I tried to clean that up slightly, but the bigger problem is how to describe the source point, e.g. Sendai, although if we end just replacing it it doesn't really matter... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may be interested in the following discussion:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 25m wave would be the height of an 8 story building. It's much more likely that the person quoted mis-spoke, and meant to say 25 feet, which would be equivalent to 7.5m (the height of a two storey house) which would be much more in line with other readings in the article. It's also much more in line with the actual video footage shown in the referenced article, where the tops of buildings are visible.

In addition, a statement from a cameraman with no experience in seismology (or related disciplines) and no measuring equipment quoted on niche website (Breaking News Video Network, Inc) is not a reliable source of information, so I'd even doubt his 25ft estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.16.7.77 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I removed the mention earlier from both this article and the article on the town. See also User talk:Strange Passerby#Otsuchi tsunami where I pretty much said the same thing. The source provided is not an RS, and I agree on the point that the person is not trained in judging the wave heights, and it would be extremely unwise to include such a reading in the article without any official agency confirming it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two conflicting references to the axis of the earth "shifting", which would imply a translation (change in orbit), not the rotation of the earth detailed by the single good source. The quoted figures seem intended to refer to the shift of the intersection of one of the earth's axes with the earth's surface. The intro quotes 10 cm/3.9 inches, but points to a decent article which gives 6.5 inches as the surface intersection point shift (and explains that they're talking about the intersection point and defines which of the several possible axes they are referring to). The Geophysical Impact section points to a dubious article which claims that the rotation axis changed by 25 cm. This article shows no understanding that these "shift" figures refer to surface intersection point. Here's a NASA reference which backs up the 6.5 inch number and verifies which axis: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html Shadowcamel (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CNN reported [7] on the footage taken by Brian Barnes, professional storm chaser, working in collaboration with Ric O'Barry, members of Oscar winning documentary team of The Cove, who were in Otsuchi filming for documentary work. KATU News[8] also reports eye witness account "50-foot wall of water rushing in" 8 minutes after the earthquake. President of the International Federation of Red Cross Tadateru Konoe stated[9]: "After my long career in the Red Cross where I have seen many disasters and catastrophes, this is the worst I have ever seen. Otsuchi reminds me of Osaka and Tokyo after the Second World War when everything was destroyed and flattened, Tadateru Konoe told Reuters during a visit to the coastal town. In the town of Otsuchi in Iwate prefecture, 12,000 out of a population of 15,000 have disappeared". "I don't think you will find anywhere worse on the coastline."[10]

Otsuchi could be the worst hit town, and these accounts and tsunami footage are the best available. Since the present city listing of time/height is from the JMA site only, I'm not sure where in the article to place this information.--Tallard (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion, per above section #Nonsensical value for height of tsunami at Ōtsuchi, Iwate prefecture – 25m (82 ft), as baseless hype not backed up by any official report. I cannot stress enough that these eye-witnesses are not experts or trained and we cannot and should not take their word as fact for inclusion in the article. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline of rubble in the background along vegetation in aerial photo #5[11], corroborates that the surge was much higher than 2 stories high.--Tallard (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that, I point you to WP:No original research. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}  Done

In the international response section, (currently the last sentence,) please wiki link Operation Tomodachi (Operation 'Friend'), the United States operation to support Japan in the current disaster. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some page sections have "See alsos", "Main article" hatnotes and 'in-line' links, but should we collect them/some of them into a main 'See also'? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had one but it was edited it out because all of the same information was already wikilinked in the article; I agree with the removal, since they were indeed duplicated links. Re-adding it makes sense if we do have unique links that are relevant but can't or don't go in the main article. Do you have any suggestions for things that we don't link to yet that should be added to a See also? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. :-(. It was finding the Operation Tomodachi page that go me thinking, as I had never heard of it. If it was in a 'See also', it would be easier for readers to find related articles, without reading the whole 'main' page! Which I must admit I haven't done, though I have been doing the odd edit on it (when possible) since only a few hours after the event. Maybe better to not have as articles are being created and deleted ie the 'Video game' one.Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article which might offer some new info about this EQ. [12]

• 1. the proportion of shaking with period of about 1 sec
• 2. the process and duration of this EQ
• 3. the PGA was almost 3G (to be more precise, 2933 gal with reference here [13])

Would like to see someone update it. Thanks. Qrfqr (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The updated PGA seems to make more sense, having done a little research before removing the non-notable 2.2g of the 2011 Christchurch quake (that quake's own page said that was only consistent with MM X+, thus it seemed reasonable to assume that Mercalli XI/XII quakes have even higher peak accelerations than that) that had been used as a comparison by ways of demonstrating how low this quake's was. I'm not an expert on quakes and don't speak Japanese; it would be helpful to have someone who's one (or both!) update this. The Google Translate output for the first reference doesn't immediately make it clear how the quake mechanism works to a non-expert like me, due to the quality of the translation. I think the 6 minute duration there is definitely worth updating with the new ref, and there's been other discussion on that, so I updated it in the infobox as well as added it to the main body. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added in that over 100k buildings were affected. I'm not sure whether or not this belongs here at this point as it seems fairly certain the number will be much higher, but then again, it's just the official count like the casualty numbers I added it next to. If anyone's wondering about the source since it's not obvious, I added up the buildings destroyed/damaged from the National Police Agency PDF (per WP:CALC exception to WP:SYNTH :) and it now totals just over 100k. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the Washington Post has offered this as an example of a black swan event [14], also noted in Foreign Policy [15]. There might be room for a mention of the concept in the article in the media coverage section. Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

user:Ohconfucius has been deleting Wikinews links from the various subarticles, are we good with that? I noticed that the Nuclear timeline article no longer linked to wikinews next to the date at which the wikinews article related to, then saw that several other articles now no longer have Wikinews. Ohconfucius's edit comments have no indication that any such edit is taking place, only that some fixing of date formats is occurring, which is quite misleading. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a very well established editor who does note some "date-related cleanup projects" on his/her user page, so I'd assume good faith... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...though if they're not back shortly, we should probably put them back and contact that editor. Don't see why some sort of maintenance would remove them for more than a little while. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page, he said they were not worthy of being on Wikipedia. That still doesn't explain why his edit comment did not indicate the removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct breach of WP:SISTER. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what's the breach? That isn't policy, just common sense. It wasn't right to remove the links for his reason given but I see nothing actionable in it per se unless it escalate(s/d) into an edit war. Anyway, best to keep this discussion confined to one page for easier following; suggest the thread at WP:ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... actionable? Please link to the diff with my demand for 'action'. The guideline specifically encourages use of sister project links. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SISTER encourages the use of links where those links "are likely to be useful to our readers". Ohconfucius stated that "None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. In general terms, the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN, and this case is no exception." This does not seem an unreasonable opinion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is aimed to be a starting point for people researching a given topic. One of the most fascinating ways to research any topic is to go through contemporary news reports and watch the story unfold - something an encyclopaedia, as a conprehensive overview, cannot give. The two projects closely complement each other. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment.
Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again.
Error reading from pool counter server

65.95.12.220 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for five years, and this is the first time I've seen this notice. I hope the article bears up under scrutiny! kencf0618 (talk)

I haven't been able to access this page for about 8 hours now... Interestingly, you can still view the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.61.145 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The electricity section says: "Two of those reactors, the Fukushima Dai-ichi and Fukushima Dai-ni, were automatically taken offline"... But these are Reactor _complexes_, each with many reactors. I'd like to see the word "reactors" in the sentence fragment replaced with "reactor complexes". (Elsewhere in the article gets it right.)

And... missing in both the timeline article, and this article, is any mention of the 3 radioactive gas releases done at Fukushima Dai-ni, to prevent the kind of explosions that happened at Fukushima Dai-ichi . ^[4] 173.206.138.245 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the first edit. As for the second part, the press release talks about "preparation work" to release some radioactive gas at all four reactors at Fukushima Dai-ni (so was it 3 or 4?), but I can't tell if they JUST did preparation work or if it's a bad translation and they actually did release the gas. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 09:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NGDC/NOAA webpage on the tsunami [16] the maximum wave height was 13 m at Minima Sanriku. This page refers to an eyewitness account. The source is reliable but should we add this information based on this eyewitness account? Mikenorton (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing roads is important. Were equipment operators mobilized to clear roads? Evacuation of flooded areas? Hotels mobilized? Crucial recovery efforts like basic road restoration effects everything, and the tsunami damaged areas should be mostly evacuated regardless of any nuclear situation.

Also note Japan has long history of tsunamis, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis Some historical wave heights reached 25 and 30 meters, causing widespread damage and deaths. How could this tsunami history not have been addressed both in nuclear construction and general construction? Not even elevated evacuation areas. 172.162.57.215 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) BG[reply]

Does anyone know if we could have a bot monitor all the quake/tsunami/nuke articles specifically about this event, and auto revert anyone who inserts "disassembled" into these pages (or any T-Mobile user, if it is possible some legal edits might get caught)? (Or alternately, could it be possible to just block the T-Mobile ISP for a week?) 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]