Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Many more missing...

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110312/local/quake-hit-nuke-plant-may-be-in-meltdown-media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.159.51 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Have included a CNN source for this same figure/claim, save that it seemed possible "missing" and "unaccounted for" were being distinguished in the latter source, and as a result for the moment I used the latter wording. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear plant

Could someone with a confirmed account add something about the nuclear plant explosion? It literally just happened. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20110312/twl-japan-confirms-nuclear-plant-explosi-41f21e0.html PassaMethod (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That was already  Done a while back, the relevant quote in the article is "he Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant experienced an explosion almost 24 hours after the initial earthquake; however, while the blast caused the collapse of the concrete outer containment building, it was reported that the the integrity of the inner core-containment vessel was not compromised.[18] [19] [16]". Please note that the article you linked is over eight hours old, it did not, in fact, "just happen." --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Casulties section

Are the reports of the numbers of casualties and people missing conflicting?OpenInfoForAll (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. The smaller numbers are official federal official totals and known to be less than what the #s are finally expected to be , "missing" and "unaccounted for" may or may not mean the same thing. This will settle out, and the numbers (as I last saw them) well reflect the real confusion and uncertainty on the ground. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but the article should make this perfectly clear. I would actually favour something along the lines of "While the number of casualties is still unclear, hundreds of people have been confirmed dead and thousands more are reported missing." That would avoid discrepancies that are starting to pop up throughout the article and quell the referencing race to get the most catastrophic number. Pichpich (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

50cm wave hits northern coast

I have removed the following statement:

A 0.5-meter (20 in)-high wave hit Japan's northern coast.

Given reference was: "Quake causes many injuries in Japan, tsunami". Reuters. 11 March 2011.

The edit it was added was: [1]

It seemed strange (50 cm? that's hardly a notable wave) so I went to the source to see if I could find it, and there was no reference to a 50 cm wave (that I could see, but the article is three pages long, revert if you can find it, I couldn't). My suspicion is that in their desire to get something out there Reuters goofed and has since fixed it in their article (not uncommon).

Source might be useful elsewhere however. Eniagrom (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC has s much better map than this wiki article

The BBC has an excellent map showing the center of this earthquake + all the Jaspanese major population areas in relation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219 (see bottom of article) Ottawahitech (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So they do. You can't use it though. Robef (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but I find it reassuring that the BBC with its dozens if not hundreds of professionals working round the clock and with direct access to people on the ground manages to kick Wikipedia's ass in terms of cool infographics produced in real-time. Pichpich (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

причина землетрясения в Японии 11 марта 2011 года

сообщение 241 86.102.34.186 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Section "Casualties": "10,000 missing" questionable

This should be clarified. There are not 10,000 people reported missing (that means somebody said "person xy is missing"), it is an estimated statistical value of the amount of people whose momentary stay is not known since they didn't went to the shelters. Most of them will be at relatives or friends. Something like this has been reported at NHK TV. --94.220.231.193 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219 --94.220.231.193 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

International response section

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

I don't think it should be split just because "that section is big". That's the dumbest way to determine splits. It hasn't enough dynamic to be it's own bloody article. 169.139.19.108 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with 169.139.19.108. As the story is still (rapidly) developing, the last thing we need is a new page to complicate the update process. As recommended earlier, let discussions for splits and moves be left for a later time when the news levels drop. Right now there is no urgency for a new section. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

169.139.19.108 is me at the library. I think articles are split way too readily on wikipedia on the basis of nothing but size with all disregard to merit. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bold (since I'm sure the copyvios only affected some items), but seconded: A list of such reactions as we had aren't useful in this article. Someone has already started rebuilding international relief efforts in prose, that's much better. Amalthea 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - just to explain for anyone asking (I've already had questions on my talk page). About 7 out of 10 that I looked at were copyvios: I thus decided to remove the whole thing as (a) leaving the remaining three out of ten would look silly; (b) no-one should have to do that kind of line-by-line fixing; and (c) as Amalthea says, we now have the opportunity to write a shorter and more focused prose section. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

While I fully support Mkativerata's judgment, the format for international response sections is very well precedented as a list format with both statements from leaders and how those countries contributed to relief efforts. The section should be rebuilt in that style (rebuilt, not re-added) as soon as possible and eventually split into its own article. Swarm ^X 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent it really is precedent: see the recent 2011 Christchurch earthquake article. If it is a precedent, it is, in my view, not a good one. First, articles should promote prose, not lists, as the preferred method of communicating information. It enables greater flexibility in writing, and is more readable. Second, because of its inflexibility the format fails to emphasise the most important information: ie, the countries and organisations whose reactions and assistance is the most important. With all due respect to Armenia, I don't think the letter of condolence from its President to Japan's Emperor warrants a single byte of coverage in this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, International response to the Beslan hostage crisis, Humanitarian response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France#International etc. It isn't easy to state the response of 25, 50 or 100 countries in prose. That's the purpose of the list format. Swarm ^X 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to question the need to state the responses of 25, 50 or 100 responses at all. How many of the responses are actually signficant? Certainly is seems over the top for the head article about the event (the links you've given are all to article splits, which is less problematic). We have about 80-100kbs here to present an article about the whole of the earthquake and the tsunami. Devoting 26kbs (as the section was) to stock-standard condolence messages from often insignficant countries to Japan is, in my view, overkill.--

I really disagree. Don't just delete the entire section. Fix it. I don't want that a week comes and there's still no real list with detailed explanations for what each country did with their response. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I agree, the responses can be pared down and paired up with "Me too's", and only keep the countries that actually send help. Since I started the Reactions to the ROKS Cheonan sinkingarticle, it was an attempt to at least start some semblance of making the main article less cumbersome to go through and hope it turns into a standard thing when it comes to these disasters.

Why don't we just make another page for it? The little tiny two paragraph look.. just doesn't seem like enough information. If we can do it for Libya Unrest we can do it for this.--24.192.70.167 (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WTH, Only two tiny small paragraphs? SOMEONE DO SOMETHING. I'm literally (not literally) itching for more information. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) --Hourick (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree to the need of more content. I was hoping for a list of international response and action, but this is all still fresh ...let's give it some time. Houndf 23:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndf (talk • contribs)

Ireland

Please add because i am not allowed to.

[[Taoiseach]] [[Enda Kenny]], only recently elected, sent a telegram to the Japanese prime minister and issued a statement that afternoon saying "Ireland stands ready to assist our Japanese friends in any way possible."<ref>[http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=55294&locID=1.2&pagename=news "No Irish reported missing in Japan"]. ''TV3 News''. </ref><ref>[http://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-offers-condolences-and-pledges-assistance-to-victims-of-japanese-earthquake-2011-03/ "Taoiseach offers condolences and pledges assistance to victims of Japanese earthquake"]. ''TheJournal.ie''. </ref> The [[Department of Foreign Affairs (Ireland)|Department of Foreign Affairs]] said no Irish had been reported injured.<ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5igILrx3IaEc0npxoGmdlkvYmIJpQ?docId=N0433891299854613494A "Kenny offers Japan earthquake help"]. ''Press Association''. </ref> [[Tánaiste]] and [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Ireland)|Minister for Foreign Affairs]] [[Eamon Gilmore]] was in [[Budapest]] but was in contact with John Neary, the Irish Ambassador in Japan.<ref>[http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0311/japan.html "Tsunami strikes coastal areas of Japan"]. ''RTÉ News''. </ref> --89.101.190.70 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Chief Executive, Financial Secretary and Under Secretary for Security have also responded to the quake and tsunami. [2] 218.250.143.188 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• I didn't know the article was ever fully protected. Was it? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• It's not, it's only semi-protected, only autoconfirmed can edit it at the moment (but that's enough to stop IPs from editing). I left a note on the IP's talk page: for anyone else, the {{editrequest}} template is only for fully-protected articles, not this one. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenia

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

Thank you.

Singapore

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

Plate interactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read somewhere that it is not clear which plate Japan is on, not that this helps much, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic Impact

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

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

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

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

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

See Parable of the broken window--88.91.29.245 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

i am an economist. basically this is to do with the argument of whether there is a spending multiplier or not and whether this is going to be more than the damage of the earthquake. latest macro research shows that the multiplier does exist, but it is very small. its a very complicated issue because the multiplier comes from keynesian theory, which is overly simple. so when it comes to applying it to real economies it must be expanded a great deal before it makes any sense. in either case it is very fair to say that the general economics community is divided on this issue and it is best to say that there exists two thoughts on the issue.--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reactor Containment

At 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Fukushima I and I it states;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI Interesting related discussion at Talk:Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant#Meltdown 2 - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The words about "at least two nuclear reactors partially melted down" are definitely non-confirmed. They CAN BE partially melted down, but it's unknown if it is really so, since hull of reactors is not damaged, and there is no external signs of meltdown underway, nor instruments that can operate inside of reactor. It will be necessary to wait for some time (couple of weeks maybe) for reactor to cool down, so it will be possible to open it and look what happened inside. The cited sources follow the same "may be" pattern, so words in the beginning of this article are definitely misleading. According to current estimates it can be only said for sure that some fuel rods may be damaged due to high temperature expansion. 91.79.74.17 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Hello, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. You have new messages at File talk:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone uploaded a different file on top of this filename, from a different source. It is no longer the screenshot as indicated in the filename. This seems like a bad idea, since it is a different source, with a different image, and is unrelated to the original copyrighted source. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

An intresting tabe

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

Other regions affected

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the table interesting to explain wave heights at various places across the Pacific. I dug up the height for Guam. I agree it's a lot of space for not much information, and we have provided the information with various images now. It might be worthwhile including the collapsed table, though, perhaps only listing casualties and wave heights. -- ke4roh (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It was just some storm that hit some coastal regions in Japan, no biggie... Girls go to shopping centres to buy 'Barbie dolls (if they are young)' / 'übercool clothes (if they are older)' again, boys move around on their skateboards (for skates are SO yesterday), housewives hang out the laundry, and dads come back home from work… Wait, what's wrong with this picture? Priapeace, I'm sure you mean well, but this thing is fár from over, unfortunately. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Effect on the United States

I have to rejoin the real world until tomorrow, but based on how the article currently reads, in contrast to what I read in an online Associated Press article, the tsunami has yet to hit any part of the United States and we should still be worried.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that I read it hit US West Coast after c. 10 hours. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It hit the west coast a long time ago. One person was swept out to sea in California, and many boats and docks were damaged or destroyed. It hit Hawaii a very long time ago, that was televised live on CNN. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? And the article says nothing?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, despite it not being mentioned here, I see we finally got the cops to stop deleting information about what happened on this side of the Pacific. Nice work.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Kyodo News to external sources please

Can someone please add this Japanese source (I am not permitted to): http://english.kyodonews.jp/ Kyodo News Japan Ottawahitech (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We only quote secondary sources, like scholars and newspapers, because we confine to summarizing what is already known. Therefore, this primary source would not fit into this article, as a reference. One could maybe think about linking a certain subpage of the Kyodo News website that specifically deals with an issue related to the Sendai earthquake. The Kyodo News website does not fit, as an external link, here, because it does not specifically refer to things related to the subject of the article. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

trains found

The German magazine "Der Spiegel" announced a few hours ago that "according to Japan Rail all five trains missing in Miyagi have been found". All passengers are save, no injuries reported. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,750472,00.html The statement contradicts the sources currently mentioned in the article, which say that there were four trains missing. Did they find one too many? Well, better than the other way around. --spitzl (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's close enough to add, I'll give it a shot if I can get past the edit conflict crush. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Aljazeera Live Blog link change

The one posted at the bottom of the page is no longer active, they switched to a new one because the old one was too long for some browsers.

New link:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/japans-twin-disasters-march-13-liveblog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.240.138 (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN's live blog is at http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/12/japan-earthquake-live-blog-death-toll-rises-amid-widespread-destruction/ at present but I imagine the /12/... part of the url will change. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Moneymorning.com is blocked?

I am trying to add information about the 5% stock drop for reinsurance companies, which is sourced from moneymorning.com, but the Wikipedia Spam filter was triggered. Is it possible to get this source up there?

The citation is as follows: <ref>{{cite news|last=Zeiler|first=David|title=Economic Aftershocks of the Japan Earthquake|url=http://moneymorning.com/2011/03/11/economic-aftershocks-japan-earthquake/|accessdate=13 March 2011|newspaper=Money Morning|date=11 March 2011}}</ref> Eug.galeotti (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in Time-Conversion

Quote: "At 03:07 JST (12:37 GMT) Reuters reported ... However, at 23:00 JST (14:00 GMT) TEPCO announced"

MHO:If 03:07 JST equals 12:37 GMT then 23 JST can not equal 14 GMT

AmigoCgn (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2300 JST / 1400 GMT time is correct. I think the first reference has an incorrectly calculated time difference. That implies the time difference between JST and GMT is 15 hours, which is not possible. I think the first reference will need a look. Eug.galeotti (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the original source. The correct JST time should be 21:37. Will make the change. Eug.galeotti (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eug.galeotti (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial shock

A strong earthquake, magnitude 7.2, occurred on March 9 at 11:45 (local time). This occurred about 170 km east of Sendai. It caused moderate shaking but no reports of damage. It had numerous aftershocks, including three of at least magnitude 6 in the early morning of March 10 (local time). In fact these were only to be foreshocks of the March 11 event, which occurred about 40 km to the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Timeline provides useful times to incorporate with the article

Timeline: Japan power plant explosion Eug.galeotti (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesser casualties and low-level damage

I have had this addition removed twice now:

Five people were swept out to sea in southern Oregon and northern California. At a beach near the mouth of the Pistol River, north of Brookings, Oregon, four people who were unaware of the tsunami warning walked out into what they thought was a low-tide zone and were caught by the returning surge. All four were able to swim to safety or were rescued. (Sources: Tidal surge sweeps four into the ocean near Pistol River by Valliant Corley, Currey Coastal Pilot, March 12, 2011. Tsunami sweeps 5 to sea, rips out California docks, Associated Press, March 11, 2011. (At CBSNews.com))

This certainly strikes dme as a notable event, in that it was one of the few incidents of bodily harm from the tsunami in North America, and it has been carried in a number of national news stories. The editor in question evidently doesn't feel its spectacular enough to merit a mention. I would like to get some other opinions on this.

I also want to note that there seems to be a bit of a mission to get rid of what is consider to be "nothing happened" content. And while tightening up of an article like this that gets multiple contributions rapidly is certainly called for, some of the removal is excessive. In my opinion, if a tsunami warning or, especially, evacuations were called, or a tsunami surge took place with little damage took place, that is noteworthy. Obviously, it is something that can be mentioned very briefly without taking up undue weight. Still, the fact that tsunami surges with relatively little damage took place in the Russian Far East, the Philippines, and Central and South America is something at least worth mentioning. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If the 4 people were rescued with no injuries there is no point to put it in. 96.250.240.138 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Were they uninjured? The source says they were taken to a hospital right after. And certainly a nearly fatal brush with a tsunami is noteworthy. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Truly a riveting tale, but like OP mentions, "nothing happened."96.250.240.138 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As the removing editor, I agree that it is not worth mentioning. The article is primarily about a disaster in Japan, with hundreds or possibly thousands killed. Listing incidents across the Pacific with no injuries, or a few waves lapping the beach is WP:UNDUE and demeans the article. There is already sufficient reference to the warnings issued across the Pacific Rim, and suitable acknowledgement of deaths and damage. Reports that "nothing happened" are simply unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Untrue that this must be an article entirely about the Japanese disaster. All articles about an earthquake and resulting transoceanic tsunami also describe the tsunami event itself, as it took place far away. (See 1964 Alaska earthquake for a good example of this.) Also, your definition of "nothing happened" is kind of a gross and ham-fisted way to summarize the events taking place. Actually, things did happen – tsunami warnings were issued, in many cases evacuations happened as well, the tsunami surges arrived and ended up causing relatively little damage. This is considered noteworthy enough that I've seen several news stories from major news organizations that devoted entire articles to the fact that less damage that initially was feared took place in Latin America. I think that this is worth a sentence here. And yes, I do think this provides the reader with information. Without this being reported, the reader has no way of knowing whether damage was limited to what is mentioned in the article, or whether its lack of mention is simply oversight on the part of the editors. (Which happens a lot on Wikipedia.) Peter G Werner (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"The earthquake triggered tsunami warnings and evacuations from Japan's Pacific coast and at least 20 countries, including the entire Pacific coast of North America and South America." --Top of the article says what you want. Travod (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Then that really should be stated in the "Tsunami" section, shouldn't it? Unless Wikipedia guidelines have changed dramatically, article leads are supposed to summarize section content, not replace it.Peter G Werner (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, as the lead should mention how far spread the disaster was. One shouldn't have to scroll down to the tsunami section to see 20 countries were worried about it. Travod (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the paragraph about tsunamis in Japan and the one about tsunamis elsewhere have the same length. And that is absurd. The Japan paragraph has one sentence about whole cities swept away, and you want to add to the "elsewhere" paragraph three sentences about 4 people swept away? If the article would mention all people who got wet in this incident, then first the tens of thousand Japanese should be mentioned, and then maybe the four from "elsewhere". --94.220.231.193 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't aware that "If it bleeds, it leads" was one of Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Silly me. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of due weight. Four people swept out to sea is an anecdote. There are similar stories of minor damage and problems throughout the Pacific coast so listing them all is not an option. Pichpich (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here, per WWGP, is WP:UNDUE: in an article titled "2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami", there is no reason to include a paragraph about a barely-notable incident on another continent, when mention is already made to it at the top of the article. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

By that token, most of the content on the 1964 Oregon/California tsunami should be removed from 1964 Alaska earthquake! To have any consistency at all with how earthquake and tsunami events are treated in other articles in Wikipedia, discussion about how the tsunami as it manifested itself throughout the Pacific is called for. Earthquakes and remote tsunami events resulting from that earthquake are treated together in every other Wikipedia earthquake article.

And by the way, I'm not just talking about the Brookings, OR incident now. It seems to me like there's kind of mission going on to gut this article of mention of events that took place beyond Japan. I think this is uncalled for. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is called the "Sendai" earthquake and that just about 99% of the damage happens to be in Japan, there is an "elsewhere in the pacific" section as well as mentions in the "casualties" section, so no, it isn't being gutted. Travod (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy here: the article is just trying to keep the right perspective. If the main result of a tsunami is four people washed out to sea, then that forms the core of the article. If the tsunami kills thousands, destroys kilometres of shoreline, moves the coastline by 8 feet and seriously damages nuclear plants, then that story in Oregon doesn't even deserve a footnote. You won't find a negligible story of that sort in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion - We should keep the focus of the article on Japan. This article will grow (perhaps splitting in time giving the proper forum for this other lesser events). We have no need to "report" what would be considered low level and/or local news at this point.Moxy (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. I just removed the mention of two subs tossed around in Guam again, which had been readded. HOW is that notable? I also removed the mention that damaging surges hit Brookings, OR and Catalina Island; they total up to just over 10k people, and nobody was killed or reported as severely injured. Now, I've left in the content on specific damages in places like Hawaii and Santa Cruz which are more notable (though the latter probably should not be there, but rather part of a summary of damage to the US in general, but I suspect editing that right now might cause an editwar.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of removing them from this article, why not move the details and add them to the articles on the locations where the damage took place, and then in this article have just a sentence or two saying where damage took place outside of Japan, and link from here to those articles? Also, the best way to fix the imbalance problem (which was also seen with the Chile earthquake and tsunami) is to expand the section on damage in Japan. For those unable to work with Japanese sources, there should be sufficient sources in English-language media to expand the Japan section. Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just an imbalance problem, it's people adding in details on tiny communities with limited damage and no casualties. I agree that these details should be on the specific pages; I just overhauled the US portion of the tsunami effects to better summarize things, and will move the specifics that I removed to the appropriate pages if they aren't already there. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 08:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I added all information I recently summarized out specific to the ports of Brookings, Coos Bay, and Depoe Bay, Oregon; and Santa Cruz, California to their respective pages. (Crescent City, CA already had appropriate information.) I hope this is a reasonable step to assuage those who've had content relating to these locations removed. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 09:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

re this issue. I updated Brookings, Oregon#2011 Tsunami where the preliminary (guesstimate I presume) damage figures were "US$25 million to $30 million". This might be of interest here. Don't know whether the sources (local newspapers/websites) are as reliable as we need. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While this article should mainly focus on casualties and damage in Japan, I agree with Carcharoth that simply deleting details of events farther afield is not the best idea. Expanding the Japanese content will help keep this in balance. If other things do eventually need to be edited out of this article to achieve due weight, we should try to find homes for them elsewhere; perhaps in articles on those locations, as suggested above, or perhaps in a new article on distant effects of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami (or some similar title). --Avenue (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have been content to have a separate tsunami article, but that redirects here. I like how the distant effects are covered so far.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Energy comparison?

I'm glad to see that specific info on energy release was added in the past few hours. However, I think it would be more relevant to change the energy comparison to annual energy used in Japan, not in the US. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a good, reliable source on total energy consumption, just electricity and such. If anyone can find such a source (perhaps in Japanese language materials), please update that section to make the comparison be to Japan's usage instead. (But the current comparison is much better than none at all, so it should not be touched other than to make the above change, I think.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 04:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone added in a global energy comparison instead; I guess that's even better since this was a global event. Thanks! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 05:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

New picture, old caption

{{editsemiprotect}} Well done, whoever it was. Please remove the caption for a quick fix. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

...which picture and caption are you referring to? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "NHK Sōgō channel TV program screen shot image depicting effects of an explosion of Fukushima I Unit 1 reactor, broadcast at 18h (JST) 12 March 2011." Now the image has been changed (again), so it's not terrible, but still inaccurate. Metadata is also wrong. Removing the caption is still a reasonable quick fix, as the image is now self-evident. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the caption is not a good fix because it's not at all clear what the image is depicting without a caption. I'm not sure what's wrong with the caption, can you please provide the text you think it should be changed to? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This caption refers to an old image, which has been changed in place. I do not know which parts of the captions and metadata still apply. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the caption is still relevant to the new image. I removed the bit about when it was broadcast, since that does seem to be incorrect as it applied to the original image, and it's unnecessary cruft anyways. If you still think there is something wrong with the caption, please tell us what you think the caption should read... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Well, it still seemed a bit long and had excess info so I changed it to read "Before and after images of the explosion at Fukushima I Unit 1 reactor". Seems accurate enough now to me. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, many thanks. 113.197.242.129 (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Before and after images

I added the following external link:

• Japan Earthquake: before and after aerial and satellite images from ABC News, credited to Google

Noting it here in case it is possible to use a set of those images. I can't remember how copyright works on those. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, the website of the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters bears watching: [3] Remember that if we can't use imagery directly, it's quite appropriate to link to it. kencf0618 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

reorder Effect on infrastructure

seeing as it's the most pressing issue and the most important, can we move the Nuclear power plants section to the top? JBDRanger (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I think it should be broken out of the Electricity section if done so. Other sorting by relevance makes sense too, e.g. perhaps moving Economic Impact above Telecommunications. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I managed to do the original request after about 3 edit conflicts in a row. I'll leave it to someone else to do any further re-ordering and wish them luck! Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial cable failure in Telecommunications section

I think I've now twice removed the blurb about a Chunghwa official stating that an undersea cable suffered some damage, but that service was not interrupted. (I assume due to it being part of a redundant ring.) I do not see how this is relevant at all; even if the entire ring failed, there are tons and tons of international fiber capacity into Japan, so traffic would be unlikely to be affected so it wouldn't even be relevant then as far as I'm concerned. Communications problems from the quake are WITHIN Japan, not between Japan and other countries. Does anyone actually consider this relevant past whoever added and readded it? Please explain to me why it is relevant, if so. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Image:Japan.quake.diagram.jpg

This map Image:Japan.quake.diagram.jpg from Commons, seems better than the current locator map used, since it shows the plates, and has a subduction diagram embedded in it.

184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the map, but I think it's too complicated/busy for the primary diagram. Other quake pages use the same type of diagram (same colors/layout/bullseye/etc) as we currently have, so I think it should be left as is. It'd be nice to put it somewhere else in the article though, but I think it needs to be edited first to crop the text from the top. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 09:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added it and was going to mention it here but that was before flodded's comment. I'll leave it on and see what everyone else thinks. I personally think it adds a lot to the article, but you make good point about cropping it. If we can get that done I think it should stay in the article. Aurora30 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The image is a copyvio from New Scientist ([4]). As such, I have removed it there and here and nominated for deletion. MER-C 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I nuclear accident

Fukushima I nuclear accident is now an article. The sentence about an explosion at the plant might be edited to link to that article. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Assuming you are referring to the lead, I've inserted a link there. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Failed dam

Japanese Wikipedia has an article on the failed dam, ja:藤沼ダム ... if someone wishes to, they could translate that into an article on English Wikipedia... 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reinstate the International Response

Currently around 50 or so countries have volunteered their search and rescue teams to help the Japanese. Millions of dollars are being raised throughout the world through individual donations, aid or charity groups. Its ridiculous that International Response section is so small because one person claims that many of the responses violate copyvio. If it is fix it, don't be a lazyass and delete whole sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.149.65 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If any country makes a sizeable financial or resource contribution, you are welcome to add it here. Just spare us the trite drivel about sympathising/condoling/standing ready. It's predicatble and boring, and generally added only so that editors can see that their country is represented. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just copyvio, it was also the fact that half the article was just a list of quotes from international leaders and such. It was extremely unwieldy, and not really encyclopedic. This is an article about the earthquake, not an article about how world leaders responded to the earthquake. The major relief efforts are in the article as they should be. (Plus what WWGB said about people seeming to just want their country in there; we have the same problem with all the people who complain that their towns of 1000 people in California/Oregon were removed from the tsunami section.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be easier as a separate article Humanitarian response to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami... similar to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake and other earthquakes which have separate humanitarian response articles. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if we did have such an article, a long list of quotes from every world leader who made a statement (e.g., all of them) still isn't appropriate. We may or may not end up with one in the days and weeks to come; keep in mind that Japan is a much more developed nation than Haiti, so they're much more capable of handling the earthquake with less international assistance. Though, we have yet to really see the true extent of the devastation... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxwyss, 13 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "One minute prior to the earthquake, Earthquake Early Warning connected to about 1,000 seismometers in Japan sent out warnings on television of an impending earthquake to millions."

This text is completely false. It should read:

"Less than three minutes after the earthquake, the Japanese Meteorological Agency sent out an Earthquake Early Warning on television of an earthquake in progress."

Maxwyss (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Maxwyss

Source? I found this article from the MIT Tech Review stating that there is indeed an early detection system in place, and also that the warning three minutes after the quake started was a tsunami warning. Other articles seem to back up the early warning system, as well as the tsunami warning being sent out three minutes after the quake started. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing template as we're waiting for user input. I would agree that this claim needs reliable sources to back it up as we already have a number of sources claiming otherwise in the article. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 13:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent reference, Flodded. Note that the EEW system does not create a warning before the earthquake happens, but can do so before the effects are felt. The reference states: Since the more damaging secondary waves travel at 4 kilometers per second, it would have taken them about 90 seconds to travel the 373 kilometers to Tokyo. Perhaps the article should be updated to clarify this. -- ToE^T 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I updated the section to include the MIT Tech Review reference and to make it clear the the warning, which preceded the effects of the earthquake, did not forecast the quake in advance of it occurring. -- ToE^T 14:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance in translating official Japanese National Police casualty/missing/etc table headers

So, there's this pdf with the official numbers. I know the first two columns are dead and missing (numbers exactly match what's reported from multiple English-language sources, Google translation makes sense for deaths, etc.) so I've updated those. I think the next three columns are injuries, but I can't be certain about that. (The first two perhaps being severity, the third being total.) Can someone please help translate the column titles so we can get injury counts? (And I assume there's other useful data in those other columns as well.) The Google translation can be found here. Confirming that the prefecture names along the left side are translated correctly would be helpful as well. Thank you. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also confirmed to a reasonable degree that the fifth column is indeed total injuries, so I'll add a template for that. (Numbers and descriptions for all three match up with the Japanese Wikipedia's infobox.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I translated most of this (a couple items need clarification); turned out that Google Translate just didn't like the vertical text formatting in the PDF. There's definitely useful information here that some editors may find helpful, and it's updated frequently. Ignoring the box with the diagonal line in the top left, which just says what the rows/columns are for (Disaster Type and Prefecture):

• Column group labels, left to right: "Human Suffering" (spans 5 columns, sub-group spanning 3 columns is "Injuries"), "Building Damage" (spans 7 columns), rest are standalone obviously
• All individual columns, left to right (semicolons between column groups): Dead, Missing, Major injury, Minor injury, Total injuries; Complete destruction, Partial destruction, Flooding, Burned down, Half burned? (On fire? Partially burned?), Some damage, Non-dwelling? (?); Road damage, Bridge damage, Landslide, Railway damage, Levee breach
• Row labels are prefectures, top to bottom: Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Yamagata, Akita, Tokyo, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Saitama, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa, Shizuoka, Tokushima, Kochi

Double-checking from a Japanese speaker would be very much appreciated, especially for the two questionable phrases, "半焼" (half burning?) and "非住家" (non-dwelling/non-residence? but that doesn't make sense in the context of describing type of building damage unless a building can have multiple descriptors, perhaps some of the other text on the PDF outside the table alludes)

Hopefully this will be of some use in editing the article to describe where the most heavily hit areas are, etc! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone found an English version for us, so I guess that was somewhat in vain! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between damage from earthquake vs tsunami

I think better care needs to be taken to indicate what damage was caused by the earthquake and what by the tsunami.

For example: The earthquake caused extensive damage in Japan, including heavy damage to roads and railways as well as fires in many areas, and a dam collapse. Around 4.4 million households in northeastern Japan were left without electricity...

Did the earthquake cause such damage as written above. My understanding is that aside form the nuclear mess and a couple isolated serious incidents the damage from the earthquake was relatively (given the size of the earthquake) and the vast majority of the damage was one by the tsunami

Paullb (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The tsunami was a result of the earthquake, and the damage in Japan was caused by a combination of the two. I don't think it's possible to separate them out in most cases. However, adding in material stating that the majority of the damage was caused by the ensuing tsunami would definitely be appropriate if references back it up. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, such an analysis would be interesting to read, and should be included in the article once it appears in a reliable source. The OP should note that while the nuclear plant shut down in response to the earthquake, they weren't in trouble until the tsunami took out their backup diesel generators. -- ToE^T 15:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A more descriptive map?

I have been trying to make something like this merging the plate tectonics map and the Japan map but my svg edition knowledge is not very good. Do you think this map would be much better in order to understand earthquakes in Japan? -Theklan (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

background/history

think we should have a section on info about past such quakes and Japan's general comptency to handle earthquakes that most buildin are made to cater to earthquakes (obviously of smaller magnitude)Lihaas (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren't there already sufficient articles covering this topic? We have Earthquake engineering, Earthquake preparedness etc. This article is going to be long enough already, without duplicating parts of other articles, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

magnitude?

It's given as 8.9 in the infobox and 9 in the text. Which is it, please? 81.147.147.106 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. Last I heard, USGS and the JMS have different estimates. We should find a way to be more consistent, and provide more of that information. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The USGS says 8.9 still, but SOME of their pages say 9.0. The JMS says 9.0. The major media were mostly reporting 8.9 after the initial upgrades, but now they seem to be somewhat split between 8.9 and 9.0. I would suggest that we go with the Japanese value of 9.0. It's their country, they maintain the seismometers, and they're the ones most familiar with earthquakes in that region. Infobox should be changed back to 9.0. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The USGS is not consistent either, it lists 8.9 on its main page about the event but then for the calculated focal mechanisms, here, the 'Global CMT Project Moment Tensor Solution' and the 'USGS WPhase Moment Tensor Solution', it gives estimates of 9.0 and 9.1 respectively. Mikenorton (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Geological Survey reckons it as an 8.9 Mw earthquake, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, however, upgraded the earthquake from 8.8 to 9.0 Mw. I must say that there's a dilemma here: yes, this is the English-language wikipedia, but this event has happened in Japan, so I would say that the Japanese sources should be followed, not the American source (for it did not happen in the US). If this creates a certain friction, then I would suggest naming the range, from 8.8 to 9.0 Mw, with their sources. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, to the extent that there are multiple sources, I tend to lean towards supplying a range of estimates and noting where they come from, but I do agree with Flodded and others here that to the extent we use one, the JMA would be the one I'd go with (barring some later scientific consensus that one of the two is more canonical than the other.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this sounds as the most prudent thing to do; naming the range of the earthquake (with their sources!), and I guess time takes over from there. If, within time, a certain magnitude is being named, then it can be adapted in this article. Until then we should name the range and sources. Does anyone disagree? Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Note: since there are many foreign sources (as this is world news), all ranging within the 8.8 and 9.0 Mw, it also takes away the 'this source says this' and 'this source says that', which limits it all down to Japanese and English-language sources, which is really all we need, I reckon. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the English and Japanese media (and those in many other languages) are getting their information primarily from the USGS and JMS in this case, and that many outlets may have old values. Better to go to the actual source...so we're left with the USGS's "official" current 8.9 but also their indecisive possible 9.0 or 9.1, and the JMS' 9.0. The use of the 9.0 is widespread within Japanese media, and again I would trust the local agency in this case. If we did go back to a range, as we had in the past, I couldn't see it being anything other than 8.9 - 9.0. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Flodded; Japanese sources should be followed, right? I mean, I just saw that the 9.0 Mw is referred to in the lead-in and in the box on the right, which is A-OK by me, just as long as this article sticks with this. Again, if there is any friction concerning the magnitude, then, please, switch over to the range of magnitude (as of now: 8.8 to 9.1 Mw), until time has shown which magnitude it really was. But again: this happened in Japan (!), not the US. I reckon we will change it later, for time has shown what magnitude it really was, so I reckon it better to follow the Japanese source(s) and adjust it later, than follow the American source(s), and adjust it later, for this is a Japanese matter. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 18:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both flodded and Robster, per WP:NONENG English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available, and with the English-language sources limited and with such a heavily-updated article I think it's perfectly fine to stick with the Japanese sources until English ones become available - assuming our translations are correct, of course... -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

English-language NHK broadcasts and English-language Japanese news sites have been pretty much all saying 9.0 for the last day or so as well, so I don't think WP:NONENG even needs to be considered. Also, part of my reasoning behind preferring the Japanese number is not just that the quake happened in Japan, but that it's a fairly widely held opinion that the Japan is right up there with the US as a world leader in seismology. If this earthquake happened in the middle of a third-world nation without that type of expertise, I'd be arguing that we use USGS data. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I do have another concern now. The USGS figure of 8.9 is noted to be a moment-magnitude scale value. The JMA PDF has a parenthetical note after 9.0 but I'm not competent to translate it. However, poking around jp.wiki.x.io with automated translation (translate [5] this page), notes that there is a specific magnitude scale used by the JMA M_j, in fact, one used before 1983 and another used after, neither of which is identical to M_w. It's not hard to imagine that the JMA is reporting magnitude based on "JMA magnitude Mj" not "Moment Magnitude Mw". Making sure we report the right scale with the right number is qualitatively as important as making sure we don't substitute centimeters for inches. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The formulas are indeed quite different. One interesting note is that in the list of example magnitudes, we have a (translated) entry of "Mj8.8 (Mw8.9): earthquake off northeastern Taiheiyou (the largest earthquake in Japan)"; the Mj/Mw and numeric parts were as they are in the original text, though. Also, check out [6] which quotes a USGS seismologist suggesting that they might move up by 0.1 as well; this would imply they use the same scale, perhaps for compatibility. I wouldn't be opposed to changing back to 8.9 - 9.0 if we cannot confirm if the Japanese numbers are indeed Mw. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, since there are still many theories about the magnitude, I'd suggest we go back to a 'range-scale', provided with sources. I'm sure that, within time, more (and accurate) information will come to us. I mean, it's the only way to get around all them numbers that are hitting us. I think Flodded would agree with this (though I'm not sure), but still: does everyone agree? Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit more research and I absolutely cannot find any references as to whether the JMA uses generally uses Mw or Mj. My opinion is to go back to an 8.9 - 9.0 range. Anyone think we need a larger range than that? –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the sources of Mikenorton, who gave a 9.1 magnitude. I'll give him a ring (so to speak). If the 9.1 Mw, however, aren't proven, I'd surely follow Flodded! If the 9.1 Mw is sourced, than I'd suggest a range of 8.9 - 9.1 Mw. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Sent a message to User:Mikenorton, which can be found here. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the USGS data that has the 9.0 and 9.1 Mw moment tensor solutions, note that the 9.1 Mw one is described as a "preliminary solution which will be updated", and that the page linking to those does still have the official 8.9 value. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking about the numbers that are hitting the people all around the world. Eventhough it's something that happened a million miles away, news channels all around the world have different magnitudes. I know the Dutch and Flemish-Belgian channels provide different sources than sources in other parts of the world (especially American broadcasters). They all range, however, between 8.9 and 9.0 Mw. Since Mikenorton hasn't said anything since my message on his talkpage, I'd follow Flodder, in that way that the 'scale of range' should be implemented, and that it should range from 8.9 to 9.0. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with a range of 8.9 to 9.0, my point was that at this stage all these values are estimates. Over the coming weeks and months the magnitude may well be revised again, as was the case for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, for which a range of 9.1 to 9.3 is still quoted - it all depends what parameters are entered into the relevant equations, we shouldn't necessarily expect to end up with a single definitive value. Mikenorton (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to 8.9 - 9.0. Agree with Mikenorton, there is a very good chance it will be revised again. Range makes sense. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, since I'm starting to listen to the second round of the NKotB album "Step by Step", I reckon it's time for me to go bye-bye (in several ways, that is ;)). I'd still love to hear what everyone else thinks! So, please, leave your opinion below my wiki-initial!!! :) Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty, we've got an agreement here! 8.9 - 9.0 Mw. Again, like I, and many others, have said: with time the real figures will be available, so until then: the range will be enough, right? (can I go to bed now, or should I stick around for another New Kids on the Block-CD-repeat (please, don't ask that of me!))? ;) :P Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos of effects in Chilean city

You could create a new section on effects in other countries (such as Chile). I wrote for wikinews an article n:Special report on Japanese tsunami emergency in Pichilemu, Chile, which contains some photographs that might be useful here, too. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we are going to be adding more pictures, I would think they would be pictures of Japan. We already have information on effects in other countries. Actually, I think Chile may be mentioned more than any other non-Japanese country in the article! (It's actually in the lede as being a remarkably far point that the tsunami reached, it's noted that the tsunami warning reached down the Pacific coastline of the Americas all the way down to Chile, it's noted that Chile received some damage, and the use of the Google Person Finder in the Chilean earthquake last year is noted as well.) Edit: Okay, so we do have more mentions of the US due to things like the USGS, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, etc. But Chile is definitely well represented! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A scientific commentary on the nuclear crisis

This link was posted in the UK Guardian, about 40 minutes ago. Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors. It is purported to have been written by "Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston" I cannot vouch for that. And since it is a letter republished on a blog, I'm quite sure it does not meet Wikipedia Reliable Source guidelines. However, I recommend it as a must read for anyone who is seriously interested in getting a scientific (rather than a journalistic perspective) on the matter -- the latter which can be tinged with more than a little sensationalist sense. The Guardian link is here. Cheers. -- N2e (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Anecdote

I don't know how relevant this might be, but I managed to contact a few friends from Japan. They live in Morioka, Iwate, and for the most of Friday, they had no power or water. The downtown and major residential areas of the city had power by the evening. More secluded residential areas only got it 2 days later, and most of the city still doesn't have access to running water. The stores were quickly emptied, and residents started collecting snow for drinking water. SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WPhase Moment Solution / Magnitude

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

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

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

Current information on USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/) shows that it was actually an 8.9 as of 03/13/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjcar86 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

USGS has officially updated the magnitude to 9.0. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.10.122 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude is 9.0 according to JMA and USGS it should be changed to reflect this.--hiraku (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties far over 10,000!

There is no way that there can be only 10,000 missing. The BBC quotes NHK reporting that many missing in a single town!

"NHK reports that in the port of Minamisanriku, Miyagi, the authorities say that about 7,500 people were evacuated to 25 shelters after Friday's quake but they have been unable to contact the town's other 10,000 inhabitants."[7]

Over 200 miles of prime Japanese coastline from Chosi to Oshika got hit with the maximum tsunami intensity,[8] which the article says is comparable in energy to a tsunami which killed over 200,000. Unless that entire coastline is all cliffs and bluffs with no low-lying beaches and floodplains, I can not imagine how 50,000 have not already been killed. [9] suggests that coast averages over 250 people per square kilometer.

Please see also http://www.esri.com/services/disaster-response/japan-earthquake-tsunami-2011-map/index.html for location-based media reports. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also please see http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/12/nhk.japan.before.after.nhk for example tsunami damage. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph above about the "missing 10,000". And the energy of an earthquake has not much to do with the casualties. --94.220.231.193 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

topographic map of Japan -- compare to population density from Chosi to Oshika.

I read it carefully, and understand, but I am so sorry, the coast involved is mostly low-lying floodplains -- please compare to http://www.bestcountryreports.com/zoomify.asp?name=Z_Japan_Pop (sorry, Flash based commercial map.) 99.50.126.70 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Luckily most of the area is not that flat (a 20 m. hill would have been sufficent), the waves mostly did not came further than 3 km. and the people mostly had more than 1 hour to evacuate. This might have saved a lot of lives, but it is still a disaster. It won't help is speculations exaggerate the amount of victims. --94.220.231.193 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You can see it in the map you added here (even though the scale is not sufficient): The dark green color means 0-50m above sea level and 20m would be sufficient (the city of Sendai has 40m). And you see a lot of light green sprenkles, what means that there are 50m+. A lot of the footage from the tsunami is shot from hills of people who fled there. Virtual all affected people should have had the time to reach safe places even by foot. So at the moment there is no evidence or indication that such a lot more people have died. --94.220.231.193 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There was more than an hour tsunami warning? Do you have a source for that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBZGH3yieLc shows the tsunami several or dozens of times the distance from the epicenter to the coast at the 1 hour mark. The fact that the quake occurred around 3pm is much better than if it had been 3am, of course. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This tsunami wave travel time map from NOAA indicates that for the area of the coast affected by the greatest wave heights, the warning time was much less than 30 minutes, and could have been under 10 minutes. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent death toll headlines from Google News: "Japanese Death Count Could Surpass 11,000" Der Spiegel[10] "Japan Death Toll Could Climb Dramatically" Forbes[11] "Japanese Official: Death Toll Could 'Far Exceed' 1000" NBC[12] "Death toll nears 900 in Japan quake-tsunami" Montreal Gazette[13] 99.50.126.70 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These are media, always looking for a headline, all refering to the fact I already wrote about in the paragraph above. --94.220.231.193 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"The death toll ... is likely to exceed 10,000 in Miyagi Prefecture alone, its police chief says."[14] 121.45.193.241 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tragic though this disaster is, we should only report confirmed fatalities. The number can always be revised upwards when new info becomes available. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Many if not most tsunami deaths can never be confirmed, because bodies wash out to sea with repeated wave surges. Thousands if not tens of thousands of bodies will likely never be recovered. It is a better service to the readers to show experts' estimates of deaths and injuries in addition to the confirmed counts. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are more than 10,000 dead, the problem its that the authorities will never recognise them unless they have the bodies, and the very end the tally for killed would be over 5,000 killed and missings over 35,000-75,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's simply nonsense. People at least in industrial states are registered and will be declared dead when they can't be found. --94.221.90.63 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, cant you read my comment, the authorities will never consider the missings as dead unless they have the bodies(burocratic rigurocity), but its obvious that this missings are presumible dead. The only way to know the true number of dead(at least aproximately) its to check the census from that places of the mayhem and check the current number of survivors. Authorities never end an earthquake tally only with dead, they always use the world missing for a sort of political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead/missing-count templates

Templates were created for these: Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami casualties dead and Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami casualties missing. Please USE them, and please stop removing them in favor of putting plaintext casualty counts in the article. We cannot keep numbers consistent between sections nearly as easily otherwise. I think I've changed raw numbers back to templates 2 or 3 times now in different locations on the page; I just changed it back in the lead section and added a comment that summarizes this talk page post. If you have a legitimate reason to remove the template that cannot be accommodated by editing the template, please discuss it here first. Thank you. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 05:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have taken out the templates involved when, as is inevitable with the templates the way they've been designed, the sources in the article stop matching the information being provided through the templates. The next time the citation in the article doesn't match the data being presented I will likely do the same thing, because I believe that the design of the templates themselves, communicating data without sources, inherently leads to WP:V problems in the numbers we're presenting.

I have proposed a change to the way the templates work that would correct this--just add the cites to the template value. See the Talk page for the templates involved. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 07:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Awww, I'll just go and hack the templates myself. Nevermind. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see this problem now - I thought the docs in the templates would compensate for it, but I guess not. I should've done this in the first place. It may result in dense citations, but that's okay. Dcoetzee 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting way of doing it, but even many non 'newb' editors will likely go WT$? Perhaps a link in the hidden note to direct editors to the template page? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

template?

The {{2010 Haiti earthquake}} has a footer navigation template. Shouldn't we also have one here?

{{2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami}}

184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, anyone can create one and just ask here for it to be added using {{edit semi-protected}}. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 06:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Any autoconfirmed user can create one... 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can always go in userspace, or someone can create the template for you or anyone else who wants to work on the initial template...just ask. 09:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, a sample template is up at Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami .

184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I created the template and added the content from your version, and added it to bottom of the main article right above categories, same as on the Haiti quake page. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Understating deaths?

Are we seriously understating deaths?

This before and after series of photos suggests to me a much higher death rate than has been reported in Wikipedia so far. I don't want us to speculate but to follow reliable sources, of course. But many reliable sources are now reporting estimated death tolls exceeding 10,000. Der Spiegel, a perfectly sensible source, is reporting 11,000 as an estimate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: This video is worth watching, and Time Magazine has useful information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

those are estimates, not confirmed "body counts". For that, weeks have to pass. Cheers,--78.3.208.103 (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disaster services are quite good at statistically estimating the number of deaths; it's an actuarial responsibility. We Wikipedians are acting on the facts as they are given out; it'll take a while for the actuality of the official numbers to catch up. Certainly insurance companies have their own, in-house estimates which have not been publicly released. That said, official estimates are gravid indeed, and notable in their own right. kencf0618 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing on Japanese TV, pretty much every east coast town and village from Aomori Prefecture to Fukushima Prefecture was destroyed or heavily damaged. I think the number of deaths could exceed 10,000, but we have to wait until the sources confirm this. Emergency service personnel and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces have only just started a concerted effort to probe the debris fields for bodies. It will take weeks for the local city governments to confirm the deaths of people caught in the tsunami whose bodies were not recovered. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There was some contention earlier over using what seemed to be initially high estimates in English-language media vs much lower numbers being reported by Japanese media. The initial consensus seemed to be to use the Japanese values. There's now full-time English-language coverage from NHK in Japan, and they are indeed reporting higher numbers...but also just estimates. I've made a couple edits like the 10k+ feared dead in Iwate Prefecture, but in the article body. The 10k+ number reported by Western media seems to be based on the 9500 missing people in that one town. In short, the estimates are all over the place and vague as to where they came from, most numbers are just missing counts at this point, there are very few CONFIRMED deaths, etc. Perhaps we should list confirmed deaths and an estimated range separately, but I have no clue what that range should be due to all of the above. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the most reliable and confirmed source is the damage report accumulated by National Police Agency (Japan). This is the latest version. Oda Mari (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you or someone else mind pointing out the relevant columns there and such? (Specifically, deaths/injuries/missing counts, both confirmed and estimates.) That would help non-Japanese speaking editors pick the useful numbers from there. I tried running it through Google Translate but it's still confusing; the rows are prefectures and the columns are type of incident/etc...but I'm kind of confused what to do with mis-translations like "Non-Living Home Door." :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 10:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And I just adjusted the numbers (well, the missing count at least) down even further, to the official numbers that are now just around 1200 dead and 1000 missing. The article body contains even more on the number dead; I did add to the lede that estimated numbers are far higher. I'd LIKE to put a good estimate in the lede, but due to the above, I don't know how to arrive at one. I don't think anyone does, other than by speculating excessively, at this point. Simply, there's no SINGLE way to describe estimated casualties, so it cannot be summarized; we have to report a bunch of various numbers from different areas and such, which is too bulky to go up top. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 13:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem at this point is just the quality of information: watching the BBC News feed their casualty numbers are deliberately vague because they just don't have any real clue, and all of the experts coming on are saying words to that effect as well. On their video stream there were pictures of an entire coastal town which had been destroyed saying that "there are at least 10,000 people missing", but at present I can't find a text-based source for it on their website. I get the feeling once rescue teams start getting further in (and, hopefully, once this nuclear incident dies down) that some more accurate figures will become available, but I feel at the moment we're doing the best we can with the limited, and often contradictory, sources that we have available. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 13:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not clear how many people were able to evacuate before the tsunami arrived (the earthquake was 14:46 Japanese time and the tsunami appears to have arrived along the coastline over the next hour or so - Sendai airport at 15:55 - it would be good if our article could give the times of arrival along the Japanese coastline. I would have thought that some of those living in the coastal towns would know to get out as quickly as possible. Others would have gone to high ground or to upper levels of their residences (but clearly not high enough in the coastal towns and villages, and I'm not sure how high the buildings would have been anyway). I saw one interview with a woman who was in her car when the earthquake struck, who grabbed her family and some possessions and left immediately. So the question is how many of the missing escaped but have not yet been accounted for? It will be some time before the real figures are clear. There should be some reliable sources saying this that we can use. Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In a tsunami, aren't estimates from the count of missing persons going to be more accurate than the body count? Bodies would have been washed out to sea with each surge of the tsunami, and in many if not most cases will never be recovered. I just think the estimates are far more accurate than the official body count, for the reasons I indicated above. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the director of the Japanese Studies Centre at Cardiff University, Wales estimating 40,000 deaths. Is it a better service to our readers to show only the confirmed deaths, or the confirmed deaths and the experts' estimates? I, for one, would prefer an encyclopedia which does the latter. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with estimates from reliable sources being included. I'm just pointing out why these are estimates. Your point about bodies washed out to sea is a good one. Remember also that some of the missing are those still awaiting rescue in remote areas, or stranded on rooftops. This is why reports concentrate on estimates of the number of missing, with confirmed death figures coming later. Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The media always run to the people with the highest number (and then add something). This Welsh expert doesn't even have been in Japan since the earthquake. What's the use of adding dozens of estimates of dozens of experts(?) from throughout the world? --94.221.90.63 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is described as an expert on natural disasters in Japan. Something I read elsewhere, which makes my point about how many managed to escape less relevant, is that here (as in Japan in general) there is a large elderly population, so large numbers of the dead will be the elderly who were unable to flee, or flee in time. But back to the original point - does the article still currently understate the potential death toll, and if so, what are the best sources available to address that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/cjsc/cph/ From a Welsh point of view he might be an expert of Japan, but from a Japanese point of view this looks slightly different. He has published about a Japanese plane crash, and this can hardly be called a natural disaster. --94.221.90.63 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. On the Guardian blog, I read this: "Ian Hanson, senior lecturer in forensic archaeology at Bournemouth University who is currently on sabbatical at the International Commission on Missing Persons, said the true numbers of those missing won't be accurate until all agencies involved in collecting data collate their information." He then goes on to mention 9/11 and how the initial estimates of 20,000 to 10,000 then 5,000 dropped to just under 3000. He says "We may see the same thing here as lists are amalgamated" - of course, it is impossible to be sure, as we don't know how the current figures were obtained, but I though that was another point to make here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's slightly off topic, but after 9/11 the media quoted experts who said something of "likely more than 100,000". The highest number I rememeber was 150,000. Luckily this turned out to be false, and hopefully it will be similar in Japan. --94.221.90.63 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, yes. I'm trying to remember what the wilder figures were for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. From memory, some estimates were too low there, and the figures just kept rising. Again, hopefully that isn't the case here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to see what we showed a few days after that tsunami and how the casualty counts changed over time. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tokyo correspondent for The Australian, Peter Alford, is reporting that Japanese authorities have said, "the death toll from Friday's earthquake and tsunami would be in the 'tens of thousands.'" Should this information be reflected in the casualties section and the infobox? How about the intro? 99.50.126.70 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I favour an approach that says "thousands" dead and "tens of thousands" missing, and specific figures later in the article, and update that at intervals as needed. What is needed is something that is relatively easy to update and something that people won't get into unseemly squabbles over. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you have the Japan studies centre director from Cardiff U. saying 40,000, and Japanese authorities saying 10s of thousands, confirming each other. I'm not editing the article because it's been semiprotected since I've been looking at it. Please do what you think is best. But please, the tiny death counts shown now are an insult to the families of the many more who have been killed. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd already suggested that the Main Page blurb be changed. I forgot to look at this article and see what it currently says. Let me do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What this Australian site (and others) writes is simply wrong. Naoto Takeuchi said that he thinks that more than 10,000 people died. Some media exaggerate "more than 10,000" to "tens of thousands". This is just an example of very poor journalism. --94.221.83.162 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Energy discrepancy

On CBS News (at about :30), USGS said the earthquake had enough energy to power "a city the size of Los Angeles for an entire year", vs. our article which says the power is equal to "80 years of global energy usage". I don't understand the science and am a layman but can see something's out of whack. Comments? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed this as it was unencyclopedic and unreferenced. --John (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No it's not a "good catch". The problem is the difference between the energy released at the surface versus total energy released. The 80 years thing is a straightforward division from a value referenced thoroughly in the global word energy consumption article. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple divisions of this type are not OR, but if re-added it should be clarified. Dcoetzee 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, straightforward as in WP:NOR. The tabloidy comparison does not belong in an encyclopedia; reminds me of "an area of the Internet the size of Wales". Numbers are fine, and references are essential. --John (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Data is data and providing orders of magnitude is standard practice to make sense of such mind-boggling quantities. Pichpich (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we need verifiability or it is your own synthesis. --John (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that very informative template on my talk page. You are confusing verifiability with useful presentation of facts. The fact that the sources use exojoules does not mean we can't also convert it into TNT equivalent which is a well-established unit of energy. The source does not explicitly say that the energy released is slightly less than the Sumatran earthquake. Should that go? Of course not. We are free to present facts that are unlikely to be challenged without providing a source for each and every word (and I respect you enough to spare you the links to the relevant policies). I don't think you would view as OR the addition of the sentence "In contrast, the total word consumption of energy is X" (and if you do, well I give up and you might as well remove the comparison to the Sendai Earthquake). Dividing X by Y or comparing X to Y is not original synthesis, it's presenting the facts in a helpful way. Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just note one of the few policies I know offhand: WP:CALC. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is, of course, world energy usage is not static. Converting to TNT equivalent would not be so much of a problem as that is a fixed conversion. --John (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point but this is why, in the last version you erased, it was explicitly mentioned (and referenced) that it was the 2008 number. It's there to give a rough idea of the scale. Nobody can make sense of what a zettajoule represents and in fact, the article joule itself gives this comparison. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point too. The solution would probably be if we can find a reliable source which makes such a comparison that isn't completely inaccurate (as many of them, sadly, are) and use that. I would favor scientific ones over non-, and I would favor comparison with other destructive events (where a comparison is meaningful) over comparison with global energy usage for any given year. --John (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with quoting Dr. McNutt? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That quote shows that, as I claimed, it is routine to make similar comparisons so that readers can get a (very rough) idea of the scale. But I've moved McNutt's quote to make it clear that she's talking about the surface energy. I've also reinstated the TNT equivalent and the comparisons with the Hiroshima bomb and global energy use. (with the precise source for the 2008 number). Pichpich (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed the last once more due to WP:SYNTH concerns. --John (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. Let's see. You're ok with the comparison to the Los Angeles energy consumption, you're ok with the comparison to the Hiroshima bomb but the comparison to world energy use is original synthesis? Placing (well-referenced) facts in an order that facilitates the reader's understanding is not original synthesis. It's called writing an article. Dcoetzee, Flodded and SusanLesch seem to agree. Is your objection the fact that I divide the first quantity by the second? Or is it the mere reference to global energy use? (Good luck arguing against that in the joule article by the way) Pichpich (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned, it is the fact that a) global energy use is not constant, b) it doesn't seem that valid a comparison, as the energy released in an earthquake is not in a form that can be used and c) this addition is therefore your own synthesis as it is not based directly on a valid source. The LA comparison is sub-optimal but at least it is based on a reliable source. The Hiroshima bomb is ok as it is comparing like with like and it is a fairly common comparator when talking about explosions and the like, as is TNT equivalent. --John (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Global energy use is not constant but I get the feeling that global energy use in 2008 will be a constant for the rest of eternity. Now if you could honestly reflect on what you wrote and drop your point (c) we can start discussing point (b) which is the only one that is vaguely valid. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami arrival times along Japan's coastline

Is there a source anywhere that gives reliable times for when the tsunami arrived at various points along the coastline of Japan? Currently our article says that the earthquake struck at 14:46 JST, and that the tsunami arrived at Sendai airport at 15:55 JST (just over an hour after the quake). However, I've seen other reports that say that the tsunami arrived anything from 15 minutes after the quake to 30 minutes for the coastlines further away (Iwate and Miyagi prefectures). This is only a Yahoo Answers page (so no use as a source for us), but the source cited there was 'University of Tokyo's Earthquake Research Institute'. Maybe someone could follow that up, as there seems to be a discrepancy here, possibly due to time zones. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What about one of the various animations of the tsunami? The NOAA one on this article doesn't have sufficient detail, but you might be able to dig up one centered around Japan with adequate timestamps to use as a viable reference for arrival times. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm still trying to work out whether the 15:55 Sendai airport time is a discrepancy or not. Maybe the most destructive wave wasn't the first in the sequence? I also saw some reports that some areas where the water has not receded is not due to temporary flooding, but due to possibly permanent submergal of that part of the coast in the sea (i.e. the land tilted into the sea). But I'd have to find that again. Hopefully there will eventually be a report like this one for the 1993 earthquake and tsunami (the Wikipedia articles for that one are 1993 Hokkaidō earthquake and the section here). That level of detail will take some time to be reported though. It might be worth putting the earlier Japan tsunamis that we have articles/sections on in 'See also'. Currently Historic tsunamis and List of earthquakes in Japan are there, but nothing specific pointing to earlier tsunamis on Japan's coastline (though there are rather a lot of those throughout history). Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This NOAA tsunami wave travel time map indicates that there was much less than 30 minutes warning for the coast affected by the largest wave heights, and if I'm reading it correctly, probably less than 10 minutes. 99.50.126.70 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is unfortunate that the big yellow star obscures the half-hour travel-time line. From where the 1-hour travel-time line meets the coast, I think you are right. So I'm still puzzled as to why our article and numerous news sources indicate that the video footage from a news helicopter of a tsunami engulfing Sendai airport is timed at 15:55. It seems more likely that this was 14:55 (i.e. 9 minutes after the quake). But I'm not going to change this unless I can find a reliable source on this, or some other explanation (e.g. it was a secondary wave or someone got time zones confused). Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I also found this which indicates that airport arrival times (and cancellations) might help here: "Tsunami struck at 15:00 local time - last departure prior was 14:35, a JAL was due in at 14:55 but may have gotten a wave-off due to the quake itself at 14:45." I'm now trying to work out if Sendai is on JST or not. It is also possible that 15:55 was the broadcast time of the news video, not the time the video clip was filmed - or was that a live broadcast? Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The best I could do was this edit (with a typo there corrected later). If NOAA do come up with a table of travel times, or a close-up of the travel times along Japan's coastline (one not obscured by a yellow star marker icon), that will help. I'm not sure whether to remove the 15:55 Sendai airport time or not, so will comment it out for now with a note that this time is not certain. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The time map is just a calculation. It doesn't say anything about the actual times. So the big yellow star doesn't obscure anything. And a forum entry of somebody from Denver is not a reliable source. The tsunami at Sendai was said to have hit the coast at about 16:00 --94.221.90.63 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting that there might be sources out there that confirm times by reference to the airport schedule and changes made to that schedule. I would never dream of using that forum post as an actual source for the article. Can you find a reliable source for the tsunami arrival time at Sendai? If so, that can go back in. Currently there is only the estimates I found from seismologists. If you can find reliable sources mentioning the actual times of arrival, that should go in. Can you help find those sources? Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/joho.html According to this, the first tsunamis with more than 0.5m height hit the north 30min. after the earthquake. Soma, the nearest station from Sendai, was hit at 15:50. Since Sendai coast is further west, 15:55 is a plausible value. So please readd this. --94.221.90.63 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was watching NHK News throughout the start of their coverage, and as I recall it the footage from the helicopter above Sendai was broadcast live around 16:00 JST (Sendai like the whole of Japan is on JST). It is possible it was not live and it was first broadcast earlier than 16:00 JST. A Saku (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was watching the BBC and it was annoying that for the whole day they recycled the same news clip with "LIVE COVERAGE" across the bottom, when it was the same clip that had been shown numerous times that day. What I want to try and do know is work out whether this page is stable, or whether it is dynamically updated and will change over the next few days. If it is stable, it can be used as is. If it will change, it needs to be used through something like CiteWeb. Would you or the IP editor above have any ideas on that? I'm going to make a list below, before it is put in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know more about the site. One problem ist, that the first wave often wasn't that high and mostly wouldn't have resulted into damage. But who knows exactly? --94.221.90.63 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I would be surprised if it's a dynamic page (in English too). I think the Japanese page is more likely to be dynamic. Could try asking JMA. A Saku (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a different page to me. As the page the IP editor provided has "Tsunami Information NUMBER 64 (Tsunami Observations) - Issued at 18:05 JST 13 Mar 2011" on it, I'm happy that it should be stable, and has actually been published at a given date and time. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sendai footage at about 16:00 was live and has as far as I know never been aired again at NHK since one can see how cars and people are washed away from the tsunami. --94.221.90.63 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it may not have been aired in Japan again, it is readily available on-line, e.g. at Gizmodo. As for the arrival time of the tsunami at specific locations, the earthquake itself had wrecked so much damage that much but not all electronic reportage had doubtless been knocked off-line, and then the tsunami knocked the remainder off-line for good. In the weeks ahead, though, we'll doubtless be getting varied post mortems from the electrical grid and the infrastructure of the Internet to God knows how many consortia of independent electronic devices such as GPS and burglar alarms and mission-critical devices sending out alarms. Wait for it. kencf0618 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they design tsunami recording stations to survive tsunamis, funnily enough. The section below (which is now in the article) appears to be the actual recorded tsunami levels and times, as published by the JMA. You are right that additional and more detailed information will become available (finding stopped clocks in the debris was one method used when analysing a previous tsunami), but as you say that will have to wait. I'm now satisfied that what I've added to the article gives an idea of the timescales involved, the length of coastline affected, and the heights of tsunamis recorded. That is what I wanted to see added to the article, and it is now there until better sources displace it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrival times (JMA)

Maximum tsunami observations (issued at 18:05 JST 13 Mar 2011), sourced to Tsunami Information (Tsunami Observation), Japan Meteorological Agency, accessed 14/03/2011. The list below is the measurements over 3 metres, arranged chronologically in time from earliest to latest (quake struck at 14:46 JST). The earliest times listed at that source are also the largest, and hence are included below (i.e. the earliest recorded maximums according to that source are between 15:12 and 15:21). There were also some other recording stations where some values were not recorded. I'm not sure what "initial tsunami observation" means, so I didn't list those.

• Iwate Kamaishi-oki - 15:12 JST 11 Mar - 6.8m (GPS wave meter)
• Ofunato - 15:15 JST 11 Mar - 3.2m or more
• Ishinomaki-shi Ayukawa - 15:20 JST 11 Mar - 3.3m or more
• Miyako - 15:21 JST 11 Mar - 4.0m or more
• Kamaishi - 15:21 JST 11 Mar - 4.1m or more
• Erimo-cho Shoya - 15:44 JST 11 Mar - 3.5m
• Soma - 15:50 JST 11 Mar - 7.3m or more
• Oarai - 16:52 JST 11 Mar - 4.2m

Would it be acceptable to add the above list to the article, saying it is a list of the largest of the maximum tsunami values, and the times those maximums were reached, as recorded along the affected coastline by the Japan Meteorological Agency as part of its tsunami warning system, with the measurements obtained following the earthquake and issued on 13 March 2011? Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Section originally started: 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - Soma entry missed out on initial edit and added here, sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable, add it in as a default collapsed table. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a bulleted list, as I can't do tables that easily. Hopefully someone else will then polish up the presentation. I'm not convinced it should be default collapsed anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And done. It may date quickly and should eventually be replaced with secondary sources, but that at least points readers in the right direction. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

2004 Indian ocean earthquake & tsunami/2011 Sendai earthquake & tsunami

May I suggest that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami should be the blueprint for this current article? I mean, as many characteristics are simular, it may give some directions in all the chaos. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 19:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I think it would be important not to try to shoe-horn all those sections into this article at once - we don't have enough info to merit an "Environmental impact" section yet, for example, but in general I think we could do a lot worse. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, please, by all means, don't take this to literal! What I am trying to say, is that the 2004 tsunami might give us an ideal blueprint of everything, and that, if there may be any incidents and/or problems, that this (2004 E&T) page is referred to. Let's not forget that this article (Sendai earthquake & tsunami) is still a work in progress, and that information is hitting us high and low, with strong and weak punches. In order to digest it all, this article could refer to the 2004 E&T, so that information is added directly, though thoughtful, into the right segment. If it is not added into the right segment, it's also relatively easy to place it in the right segment. It might provide a guide to many of us, not in the last place to the many anonymous wikipedians who might have information that they like to add (if it is unuseful information, then it's also easy to get rid of). Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I would be very happy with a general sort of "if considering layout or other large changes to this article, consider using foo as a guide" note at the top of the page in a comment or something, can't hurt at this point. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 20:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't know of any template that could ask for such a thing, would it be an idea to create a < nowiki > (asking everyone to follow the directions of the 2004 E&T) on the top of the article page? Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 21:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried to add a referrence in the form of this: <!--Please, try to follow the [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami]] article as a blueprint for how to shape this disaster.--> Is there anyone who could do better? (come on, you know you can do! :)) Anyhow, any help is more than appreciated! Any discussion about this, though, is also MORE than appreciated! Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 23:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

When the 2004 event happened, there were several mentions of slighting of tsunami information in favor of earthquake priority in the talk page, related talk pages, and edit comments. I don't think we should lessen tsunami in favor of earthquake, since several news sources say the damage is mostly from the tsunami, and not directly from the quake. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)