Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 292: Line 292:


When going directly to the page, the third paragraph begins "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed 12,259 deaths,[4][5] 2,858 injured,[4][5] and 15,315 people missing[4][5] across eighteen prefectures", but when redirected to the page via the search "Japanese tsunami 2011", the paragraph begins with "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed many thousands of human beings were disassembled". This seems like a problem, but I don't understand why it happens. [[Special:Contributions/65.211.178.123|65.211.178.123]] ([[User talk:65.211.178.123|talk]]) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
When going directly to the page, the third paragraph begins "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed 12,259 deaths,[4][5] 2,858 injured,[4][5] and 15,315 people missing[4][5] across eighteen prefectures", but when redirected to the page via the search "Japanese tsunami 2011", the paragraph begins with "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed many thousands of human beings were disassembled". This seems like a problem, but I don't understand why it happens. [[Special:Contributions/65.211.178.123|65.211.178.123]] ([[User talk:65.211.178.123|talk]]) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

== Why no mention of HAARP related activities in the North Pacific? ==

There were several experiments being conducted concerning HAARP in the area affected by the Earthquake and Tsunami. Fact. Why is it being censored here? I'll provide links soon. [[Special:Contributions/134.74.154.74|134.74.154.74]] ([[User talk:134.74.154.74|talk]]) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:03, 5 April 2011

What is in a shelter?

Is it possible to describe the shelters generally? I wish to know more about the facility, service, management and problems of the shelters.

  • Are all shelters the same or are they all different?
  • Are those buildings designed to be shelters?
  • How do people in the shelters dial and take phone calls? Or they use their own cellphones?
  • How are the shelters managed? How do they manage disputes and crimes?

Thank you.114.25.190.196 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page for this wikipedia article. It's purpose is to discuss changes to the article, not the topic in general. Perhaps you should try exploring some of the external links listed in the article. Alternatively there are a great number of political, etc talk forums which may give you a better chance at getting information. Yahoo and other providers have "questions" places where you can pose questions like this to their readership.Jbower47 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should i add this information to the page? I dont think this is relivent to the topic though...TheApplePi (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—165.155.204.70 (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Coord|57|18|22.5|N|4|27|32.7|W}}

 Not done. A joke, apparently. Deor (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Navy

Japanese authorities conducting rescues by small boats.

How come in the "international" part of the article, 3/4 pictures are mentioning US Army/US Navy. Are these the only pictures available? Seems like a case of "We helped the mostest". Alepik (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have some damage pictures donated by locals but I think all of our photos (about 200 now) of relief operations are U.S. government works. The U.S. government does not create copyrighted works so we can use all their photos while other countries have to specifically freely-license an image for us to use be able to use it. Perhaps we will get some private or NGO images after the immediate disaster settles down. Rmhermen (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We now have one non-U.S. sourced image. It might fit somewhere in the page: Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is simply a case of the US military producing tons of public domain images while other countries aren't doing that. Aside from the US, I don't believe any mainly English-speaking country releases government/military photographs into the public domain, because they're all commonwealth realms and fall under crown copyright. Surely there are some, however, that feature other countries. Swarm X 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, this does not mean removing the images that we had. Swarm X 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Perspective Chart

Randall Munroe has constructed a chart that is very handy for explaining how insignificant the radiation occuring in Japan actually is. He released it into public domain.

"For people who asked about Japanese translations or other types of reprinting: you may republish this image anywhere without any sort of restriction; I place it in the public domain. I just suggest that you make sure to include a clear translation of the disclaimer that the author is not an expert, and that anyone potentially affected by Fukushima should always defer to the directives of regional health authorities." http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

It has been uploaded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png

I'm not good with formatting, but someone who is should add it to the page, or related pages to the disaster. --Tarage (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Sub-Page (List) of Severely Damaged Towns and Cities

A common Wikipedia practice is to title such a sub-page something like this: "List of Towns and Cities Heavily Damaged by the 2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami".

A second list of towns and cities affected by significant radiation contamination might also be a good idea.

173.246.35.179 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name (again)

NHK World TV, Asahi Shimbun and even the UN OCHA have taken to using the name "Great East Japan earthquake" to describe this event. Just as how the 1995 Kobe earthquake is known as the Great Hanshin earthquake, should we rename the article to the new name? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European Geosciences Union has added a session to its annual assembly in Vienna in April on this earthquake, using the names "Tohoku (Sendai)". I bet "Tohoku" will stick with seismologists, nobody is going to use a cumbersome, ill defined name like "East Japan". I think Wikipedia should stick to "Tohoku".Maxwyss (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Quake was off Miyagi Prefecture, near Kennasuma
Tsunami damaged Tohoku the most
Fukushima is the center of the nuke incidents
Miyagi and Fukushima are part of Tohoku
so... Tohoku seems more appropriate. "East Japan" easily refers to the entire eastern part of Honshu, from the watershed divide on eastwards. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese government has given the disaster an official name, literally the "Great East (or Eastern) Japan Earthquake Disaster" so we can expect this name to start appearing in the media. I added this name to the first paragraph. Technically the name of the disaster can be different from the name of the earthquake and tsunami, so Tōhoku is probably still fine as the name of the article. AlanSiegrist (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least 1 Japanese agency is referring to it as the "2011 Tohoku - Pacific Ocean Earthquake" http://www.mlit.go.jp/koku/flyjapan_en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.59.137 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Someone fix the infobox. Pubserv (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the "countries or regions affected" data doesn't render properly for some reason. Brandmeister t 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently trying to track down the problem, but going back to old versions takes a long time to reload. Mikenorton (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I still don't know exactly why it failed to display properly, but I found the edit where it all went wrong and messed around until it worked. Mikenorton (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pubserv (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens section

This section (or at least the first part of it) has been the subject of dispute, but there has been no discussion about it here (or at least none that I can find in the archives). It has just been tagged for its tone, which I tend to agree with. It would be good to reach consensus here on whether it should stay as it is, be modified or removed completely. Mikenorton (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second paragraph of the Response/Citizens section includes content which I find both unencyclopedic and misleading, and thus objectionable.
It is both highly unencyclopedic and misleading to begin with a quotation stating "The morality of the Japanese society is amazing. Not one mention or incident of looting or violence" when in fact, as stated in a following paragraph, looting did actually happen. Also, I find the mention of "the Japanese trait of gaman" highly unencyclopedic. I also find the mention of "a very Japanese deference to authority" unencyclopedic and somewhat misleading. Everyone here knows that if a similar event and response took place in any other country, for example Iceland, no one would write about some "exotic special trait" of the Icelandic people. The paragraphs were written with an irrational and unencyclopedic "japanophilic" bias and need to be corrected or removed.
I suggest that the mentioned paragraphs be removed in their entirety.MindStorM (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is misleading about it? It's a sourced quote and a sourced section. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it should start with the quotes, that just looks strange to my eyes. I think that the section could be usefully shorter with only the second of the quotes and that incorporated into the last paragraph, I'll see if I can come up with some words as a suggested alternative. Mikenorton (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that starting the section with a quote is awkward. I have no problems with making the section smaller or rewording it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That' silly. Even if there were exactly zero disaster-related lootings anywhere in Japan initially as the quote suggests, there were reports of lootings afterwards as mentioned in a following paragraph, and thus it is misleading to begin the section with a quotation from a random "Japanese-American citizen living in Tokyo" the content of which didn't hold true for long afterwards if it ever did. It is misleading to first suggest that "there wasn't a single looting" when in fact there were lootings as mentioned afterwards.
I suggest that the first and second paragraphs be entirely removed. This is also good for the balance of the Response section.
PS. I smell an irrational bias from a top 100 editor. I never liked wikipedia anyway because of this crap. MindStorM (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Be aware of our no personal attacks policy. Continuing to make veiled attacks will result in a block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggested alternative is below (I've added a reflist to show which refs are being used):

There was a notable lack of large scale looting and disorder following the earthquake, and this was attributed not only to Japanese forbearance, an attitude sometimes referred to as gaman,[1] but also to laws that encourage honesty, a strong police presence and three main clans of Yakuza gangs patrolling their territories.[2] A reporter for the Canadian The Globe and Mail wrote, "As one catastrophe piled on top of another, a very Japanese deference to authority emerged, as well as a national desire to see civility prevail, no matter the circumstances."[3] Some people devastated by the quake began, however, to question the government's effort in providing food, clothing, electricity, heat, and phone service.[4] Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano later said, "In hindsight, we could have moved a little quicker in assessing the situation and coordinating all that information and provided it faster."[5]

Some ten days after the quake, reports did begin to emerge of incidents of looting and theft in quake and tsunami-hit areas. By 20 March 2011, 250 thefts, with ¥4.9 million in merchandise stolen from stores and ¥5.8 million in cash, were reported to the Miyagi Prefectural Police. Witnesses reported thieves stealing cash and bank books from smashed houses, looting goods from stores, and siphoning gas from abandoned or damaged vehicles.[6][7][8] Around ¥40 million was reportedly stolen from a bank in Kesennuma, Miyagi.[9]

  1. ^ "Crushed, but true to law of 'gaman'". The Australian. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 18 March 2011.
  2. ^ Beam, Christopher (2011-03-16). "Stop, Thief! Thank You". Slate. Retrieved 2011-03-19.
  3. ^ MacKinnon, Mark (2011-03-15). "National stoicism helps Japan manage disaster recovery". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2011-03-16.
  4. ^ Magnier, Mark (18 March 2011). "Japan earthquake: Residents of Japan's quake region wonder where the government is". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 18 March 2011. Retrieved 18 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "A week after quake, Japan's leader vows to rebuild". Associated Press. 19 March 2011. Archived from the original on 19 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011.
  6. ^ Agence France-Presse and Jiji Press, "Desperation tests crime taboo", Japan Times, 21 March 2011, p. 2.
  7. ^ Jiji Press, "Thieves, looters targeting Miyagi's quake-hit stores", Japan Times, 21 March 2011, p. 2.
  8. ^ Allen, Nick (21 March 2011). "Japan earthquake: Looting reported by desperate survivors". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 21 March 2011. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
  9. ^ Gilhooly, Rob, "Survivors strive to start picking up the pieces", Japan Times, 27 March 2011, p. 7.

Is this an improvement? I await comments. Mikenorton (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement at least MindStorM (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, I disagree with mentioning "gaman". It's simply not encyclopedic. MindStorM (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. I don't see the problem with "gaman." And what does "not encyclopedic" mean exactly? I know that term is often used in Wikipedia discussions, but you should be able to say more specifically why it should not be included, rather than just repeating, "it shouldn't be there." OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the section with the proposed content by Mikenorton (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

I think this category name is somewhat problematic as few towns have been completely and utterly destroyed and I feel this is starting to cause some contention, I suggest "devastated" would be a better word than "destroyed", since it allows for the fact that there may be some houses etc left standing, e.g. the outskirts of some towns are often still there even if the main part of a town has been destroyed. Samatarou (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical idea. Would you mind listing that at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Goodvac (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and listed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 28#Category:Cities and towns destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami per your rationale. Goodvac (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am placing a link to this category (for now) in the See Also section, although there should really also be a Wikipedia List-Page--

(Such as "List of Cities and Towns Severely Damaged by the 2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami). Hopefully if that list is eventually created, the See Also link can then be switched to that.

In addition there should be a Second list-page--

"Cities and towns evacuated during the 2011 Japanese Nuclear Crisis", this should also have a sub-list of cities and towns under long-term/permanent evacuation (the Japanse government has just announced that a few nearby towns are now under such an order).

173.246.35.178 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created List of cities and towns severely damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Feel free to update it ad add information to it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed

This article needs a map of northeastern Japan marked with the extent of innundation. Does anybody know of such a map, or of information that would allow such a map to be made? HowardMorland (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a starting point. I see a problem in making a good graphic illustration of this information because the east-west dimension of the innundation area is so small compared with the north-south length of coastline involved. I don't think this link is included in the External Links section of the article, so I guess I should put it there.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullmaps_sa.nsf/luFullMap/6A50E2DC420D932C8525785500686386/$File/map.pdf HowardMorland (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length

The article is too long for editing/saving it as a whole, most likely because of too many templates, and the size will only grow. We must decide how to handle this ASAP. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider creating a 'damage and effects' article from that section of this article, leaving just a summary here. Hmains (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide feedback on this issue. On Windows Vista + Firefox + fast internet + fast PC I can not save any edit without getting a wikimedia software message error, even when editing a small section. Do others experience that? To me the situation seems grave and thus I am considering boldly moving a large section (like suggested above) to a new article, letting others to write a summary. Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that error message whether I'm on Windows Vista, Mac, or openSUSE.
A separate "damage and effects" article would be good. Then we can work out a merge with Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. Goodvac (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(The issue is not with the code length but with the vast number of templates). I would actually move not the "Damage and effects", which is a core part of the article, but sections from "Response in Japan" and below (or "International response" and below), because they are secondary, and less informative. How about that? Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's definitely too unwieldy, it often takes me a few attempts to load the article. I would hive off "Economic impact" into a subsidiary article as that section can only get longer as time goes on, also much more of the Fukushima nuclear section needs to go into the side article (having said that, Fukushima I nuclear_accidents is itself very long and would in turn benefit from most of the timeline stuff being moved to the Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents (or deleted if it's already there, which is probably the case). Samatarou (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I suggest the effects and aftermath section of this page be split into its own page. I propose this because of the great length of this page, mostly due to this particular section. Further reason is the unusually complicated and multifaceted aftermath: humanitarian crisis, economic impact, nuclear incidents, etc. --User:WoodElf 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went bold and mechanically split the article into Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, merely to make the article editable. My idea was to keep geological information here and move humanitarian sections. I shall not complete the split and would appreciate help in tidying the split articles (writing the lead of the new article and summary of the split content in this article). Also, would be nice to move a bit more content, for loading time reasons. Materialscientist (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • good work Unfortunately, the article still results in a Wikipedia error screen when you save it. So there is another problem to be fixed besides length. Hmains (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've written a one paragraph summary in this article and reused it as the lead of the split article (with addition of link back to main article), I tried to keep it really short (I hate it when the synopsis ends up nearly as big as the side article!) and simply drawn out one or two key points from each section (except the sport section which didn't seem very important compared to the rest). I worked the section headings into the text too to serve as pointers. Samatarou (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is way too long and takes long to load even on my fast computer. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 17:42, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

editor deletion problems

hello I have run into some editor who keeps removing a picture of bought-out empty store shelves in Japan, which are in the section "economic effects"... the claim is that the picture is unrelated to the text, however for obvious reasons I don't really buy that. Also as you can see from earlier topics here we already are having a need for more japan-created images and these store shelf pictures are some of the few from the disaster. So hopefully people can either explain what I am missing or help me with this editor. At this point I have tried 3 different images of store shelves and all 3 have been deleted, so I guess we are dealing with a pov situation but I can't exactly figure out why. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was I, and had no hard feeling, but the image is WP:OR. Empty shelves could have dozens of reasons unrelated to disaster (e.g. often retail buyers empty a shelf for a moment, etc.). Further, this empty shelf situation really varied from shelf to shelf and shop to shop. The image with a queue to 7/11 is much, much better in this regard - anyone who's been in Japan would say it is weird in any circumstances. Materialscientist (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaman"

I suggest that the reference to "gaman" in the (Response in Japan / Citizens) section be removed, since it is unneeded, misleading, and even biased with irrational "japanophilia", and therefore highly unencyclopedic. MindStorM (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-sourced; in fact, the term is used in the title of the source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addition of minor edit

i think that the article should include the Mandatory U.S. evacuation (50 km from centerpoints. centerpoints being the two nuclear power plants mentioned in the article) and the added text be paired with the japanese evacuation orders

[note: cited from Today on NBC (special episode crisis in japan)(aired approx 2 or 3 days after the earthquake)]

proposed edit: Residents within a 20 km (12 mi) radius of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and a 10 km (6 mi) radius of the Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant were evacuated. In addition the U.S. ordered all us citizens to evacuate beyond 50 km of the plant.[citation needed]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.188.182 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 March 2011

 Done [1] Goodvac (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake section problem...

Last evening I watched the excellent PBS special on the quake and they mentioned a village with a 30 ft. seawall that was topped by a 30 ft. wave, explaining that the coastline in that area had dropped 3 ft. Reading this article for the first time, I found in paragraph 3 under the Earthquake heading a mention that the sea floor rose by "several meters", however the reference used did not actually mention that fact, if indeed it is a fact. The reference did, however, mention that the quake was only 15 miles deep, which certainly is extremely significant and I cannot find the depth mentioned in our article. I will fix this if nobody else will step in to do it, but not having worked on this article it sure would be a lot easier if someone who has been working on it would take care of it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TEPCO does not own Onagawa reactors

Dont know what I am doing. But somebody look into this and make changes where necessary. I live in Sendai. At about ref. 192, someone says that TEPCO owns the ONAGAWA reactors. Not so. They are owned by Tohoku Denryoku. Big difference there. I know the IAEA is not too concerned with accuracy in its reports, but it is important becuase ONAGAWA has three reactors, all were safe. All are much closer to Sendai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.135.8.120 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for your report. Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name?

As noted on the header of the main article, the Japanese government officially renamed the disaster as Higashi Nihon Dai Shinsai (東日本大震災, lit. Great East-Japan Earthquake (and related disasters)) (Shinsai (震災) can be translated as "disaster of an earthquake"). According to the Talk page of Japanese Wikipedia article, editors are currently trying to leave the name of main article as is, while changing the names of sub-articles describing damages, aids from other countries, related crimes, etc., to the new one. I would like to ask if the name of the English Wiki article should be changed or not.--WCIDFS (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we use WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --Kslotte (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some user has moved this article to 2011 Great Eastern Japan Earthquake Disaster through a 3rd name, and, in restoring the article integrity, I have kept the move. Please comment if the name should be changed - I have move-protected the article, and thus name corrections can be (un)done by admins only. Sorry for this confusion. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the last name, and if the user wants to change the name, let them begin an WP:RM, like they are suppose to do.--JOJ Hutton 03:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait a bit for comments. Meanwhile, the lead needs to be brushed up and reflect the recent name change by the Japan Government. I've quick added an NHK ref, but in the long term, a more stable ref. would be needed. Materialscientist (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this seems a spectacularly poor choice of title. I very much doubt that any English speaker would look for it under this name, and it raises the obvious question as to whether it is possible to have a 'great earthquake' without it being a 'disaster'. Personally, I think there is a good case for automatic move-protection for active 'in-the-news' articles simply because well-meaning but uninformed edits can cause so much unnecessary work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please return this to the name chosen in the naming debate - now mostly in archive 3. (and a fresher link for one of the key points there: [2]) Rmhermen (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I request the comments to be crystal clear on names and links. I guess you mean returning to the pre-move name, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck. Please return to the pre-move name. This name is horrible and there was no WP:RM initiated. SnowFire (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bolded name of the article in the first paragraph now doesn't match the article's title... Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I only changed the English name, however; I left the "new" Japanese name since (I believe) that's still supported by the sources. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the one in the infobox. Goodvac (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
just because the Japanese Govt. can't make their mind up about the name doens't mean we have to keep renaming the article too, especially as there are lots of category names and references that would need updating to match. I notice that the japanese wikipedia article still uses the name Tohoku. Samatarou (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Why don't more of these very thourough and comprehensive current events artic least "good articles?" I am going to nominate it now that it has settled down. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot of WP:MOS work getting an article like this ready. Although the article contains a lot of good information, many of the references aren't formatted correctly, information is sometimes repeated in different parts of the article, there are grammatical and logical flow problems, and some of the images may have incomplete sourcing and licensing information. Cla68 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum tsunami height: 37.9 metres

Hi. Can we add this report stating the highest tsunami height in Tarō, Iwate? The highest tsunami ever recorded in Japan was 38.2 m, in Ofunato during the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake. However, there is some discrepancy in the article as it claims that the new height is somehow higher than the previous record. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added it. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a tsunami that is 124 feet tall a mega tsunami?--Matthurricane (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incoming wave wasn't that high, rather it swept 37.9 metres up the hillside (according to a Channel 4 documentary the tsunami itself was 10 metres high at Miyako, and only cleared the sea wall because the land had dropped by a metre). Samatarou (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

涌谷町について (Location of a photo is captioned incorrectly as Wakuya)

「In Wakuya, Japan」の写真は涌谷町のことでしょうか？　涌谷町は陸に囲まれているため、津波は来ないはずです。何か間違っていないか、ご確認ください。「Wakuya」が涌谷町の事ではなく、他の自治体の中にある地名であるなら、その自治体名を書かないと、涌谷町の事だと誤認してしまいます。--119.171.84.200 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is correct. The caption of the image must be a mistake. The town of Wakuya/涌谷町 is far away from the sea shore. See the map. The name of the city is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, but I don't think we have the name of the city, as the US Navy labeled the photo with Wakuya. Goodvac (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to tweets by CNFJ (in Japanese) [3][4][5], it is one of pictures taken during the mission to deliver aid to Wakuya but not of Wakuya. There is no info where they were actually taken. --Kusunose 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what happened is that the US Navy photographer was on the mission to Wakuya, and snapped that photo as his/her helicopter passed over the coast. Not knowing what town was below, he/she just labeled the location "Wakuya". Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

対応ありがとうございます。英語があまり読めないので機械翻訳で読みましたが、涌谷町の米軍仮設キャンプから飛び立ったヘリが撮影したというのが、涌谷町の被害状況を撮影したと誤って書かれてしまったということなのですね。沿岸部の市町村でも、実際に冠水したのは数％程度の低地なので、涌谷町という時点で変だなと思ってしまいました。--119.171.84.200 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pinpointed the place. It's an image of Tarō district in Miyako, Iwate. See these images. [6], [7], and [8]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks different when redirected?

When going directly to the page, the third paragraph begins "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed 12,259 deaths,[4][5] 2,858 injured,[4][5] and 15,315 people missing[4][5] across eighteen prefectures", but when redirected to the page via the search "Japanese tsunami 2011", the paragraph begins with "The Japanese National Police Agency has officially confirmed many thousands of human beings were disassembled". This seems like a problem, but I don't understand why it happens. 65.211.178.123 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were several experiments being conducted concerning HAARP in the area affected by the Earthquake and Tsunami. Fact. Why is it being censored here? I'll provide links soon. 134.74.154.74 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=422560965"